Extending Newton’s Principia Mathematica

On July 5, 1686, Isaac Newton published his now famous Principia Mathematica, forever changing science and humankind. Its principles have dominated our technologies and have allowed for the construction of amazing structures, machines, and vehicles here on earth and in space helping create modern life as we know it.

But since Newton first published his now famous work more than 300 years ago, little if no progress has been made in order to extend Newton’s principles of classical mechanics to the rest of the universe. Gravity, light, magnetism, electricity and much more remain a mystery with no physical explanation to date. Mathematical explanations for describing how things work abound but we still don’t know what these most fundamental forces really are. Newton himself worked on some of these concepts during his lifetime but never succeeded beyond mathematical equations. Regarding gravity, something that made Newton famous, Newton said:

“I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses.”

Sir Isaac Newton

Neither Newton himself or any of his successors have been able to extend Newton’s Principia in order to give physicality to universe. Pieces have been discovered, but no one has been able to add a comprehensive extension to Principia Mathematica in order to take classical mechanics forward – until now.

First Serious Attempt at Extending Newton’s Principles

Father and son team Bob and David de Hilster in their new book, “Principia Mathematica 2, A Complete Toolkit for Hacking the Universe”, claim to successfully extend Newton’s Principia using concepts from Newton, LaSage, Borchardt, Dinu, as well as key concepts from the authors themselves.

Those familiar with the Particle Model agree: the particle model has for the first time, successfully extended Newton’s Principia in the attempt to give real physicality to everything in the universe.

“It’s not important if it is correct. It is important that it is the first..”

Amnon Meyers – book editor

The Particle Model (TPM) gives the first possible answer to the most basic question everyone has about the universe: “what is this stuff made of?” As an example, today’s “Standard Model” cannot tell us what a magnetic field is or what gravity is or what light is. This is quite shocking given that humankind now finds itself in 21st century without any real answers. The Standard Model and Newton himself have equations for how the universe works, but gives us few clues as to what is physically happening.

Author Bob de Hilster sums it up as follows:

“Today’s science tells us what it does, not what it is.”

Bob de Hilster, book’s author

The Book

The book Principia Mathematica 2 lays out a clear set of extensions to Newton’s work on classical mechanics and then presents the two author’s attempt at hacking the universe using those extensions – something they call the “toolkit”.

Everything from gravity, to light, to magnetism, to electricy, to charge, to atomic polarity are described including hacks for white light, dispersion (white light being broken down into rainbows), to exactly how and what is happening inside the basic components of electronic circuits. Color, light, transparency, reflection, magnetism, and how and why atoms and molecules stay together are all explained using Newtonian mechanics.

Based on Intuition, not Math

All theory, including Newton’s classical mechanics is based on math, not intuition. The Particle Model’s principals however are all based on concepts that require no math and that can be understood by anyone using our innate and learned intuitions. The physicality of everything in the universe can be “hacked” by anyone using visualizations – no math needed.

Those few who are familiar with the Particle Model have said that they now see the universe in a completely different light and can’t go back.

Website and Videos

This website is accompanied by two YouTube channels – one for the book, and one by author Bob de Hilster which are dedicated to the Particle Model and its explanation of exactly what everything in the universe is – according to Principia Mathematica 2.

Here are some links for more information:

Special Initial Printing of the Book Coming Fall 2020

The authors will be making a special printing of the book in the fall of 2020. The special printing will be sent by the authors to those who sign to buy this special edition and will include the first edition of the book signed by the authors with a special note to those purchasing the book, along with a TShirt.

Information coming soon on how to purchase this special edition.

 9,086 total views,  1 views today

Recommended1 recommendationPublished in New Theories, Newton

Related Articles

Ivor Catt And Displacement Current

In an article published in Wireless World, December 1978, Ivor Catt published a criticism of the Maxwell displacement current that provoked considerable controversy. This article had a significant impact on my thinking as I had always had reservations regarding the displacement current concept in electromagnetic theory. In fact, the idea of displacement current that the modern textbooks present is completely different from Maxwell’s conception of it. Maxwell’s displacement current refers to the displacement of the electric particles of Maxwell’s aether.

 4,970 total views

Jeff Yee Programming Project

A competition will be held for developers to contribute to the open source project, with prize money awarded to the winning submission in each phase of the project. There are initially five phases to the project, with a total of $15,000 in cash prizes awarded. The dates and requirements for each phase are found in the next section.

 4,761 total views

CNPS 2019 Conference at the University of Washington a Resounding Success

The 25 annual NPA and 5th annual CNPS conference at the University of Washington was a resounding success with conference goers all having a fulfilling time. Some new and old faces appeared and it was great to see that the CNPS is alive and well. With a number of unusually sunny days, the conference was held in Alder Hall on the beautiful campus of the University of Washington with majestic buildings, amazingly large trees, and beautiful vistas of the mountain including a picture-perfect view of Mount Rainer.

 4,386 total views


  1. Light and Gravity !! Two fundamental questions.

    Regarding light, it’s clear for me that Einstein is wrong, relativistic addition is wrong. Light is a dipole particle , ejected from matter at the C velocitiy, and for an “immobile observer”, the apparent speed of light is C+V if the light comes from a vehicle going at V speed.

    Regarding gravity, I imagine a kind of pressure given by particles coming from all directions of the space , and lower pressure from the direction of the planet wich is giving gravity.

    But the problem of gravity (explained by particles) is nothing regarding INERTIA.

    I am trying to explain inertia and why immobility is the same thing than constant speed, and why the change of speed creates a resistance to this change. I wil give you my ideas.

  2. Regardind the aether model, explaining electricity ( linear motion of aether) and magnetism (rotational motion of aether) , how do you explain that a linear motion of aether produce a rotational motion of aether, always with the AMPERE LAW

  3. Newton had more to speculate about in his book “Opticks” (1730 edition). In the queries he linked the cause of gravity with an aether which also directed corpuscles (photons) to form the diffraction and interference pattern of the single slit and double slit observations. see:
    Scalar Theory of Everything STOE unites the big, the small, and the four forces (GUT) by extending Newton’s model, IntellectualArchive, v. 9 (4),P. 14. http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=2414
    You may want to comment on the 1730 edition queries in you book.

  4. Most of what you ascribe to Newton is false. This to see requires only to read the Principia. I give you but two examples: (1) Did Newton base his mechanics “on math”, as you’re asserting? No. As an exponent of “experimental philosophy”, he based it on experience and experiment only. Read his Preface to the Principia, dated 5 May 1686. And, insofar as he used “math”, did you realize that he bases his mathematical considerations on “Euclidean Geometry”, not on algebra and analysis? (2) Did Newton use “equations”? No. Nowhere in the Newtonian foundation of mechanics can you find “equations” (A = B = A; so A/B = 1); in Newton’s mechanics, there are only geometric proportions (A unequal to B; so A/B = C = constant; cf. Newton’s Principia, Book I, Sect. 1, Scholium after Lemma X).

Comments are closed.