On the Shoulders of Newton . . .

[exchemist]

Yes, he was very religious and very unorthodox by the way, firmly (to put it mildly) against Trinitarianism. A book came out just a few years ago about this. I highly recommend it:

Priest of Nature - Wikipedia

Yes, I gather he never proceeded to take holy orders, as was at the time expected to hold position at Cambridge, being a kind of unconventional Unitarian. Thanks for the tip about the book: it looks worth a read. I may buy it.

 

[exchemist]

He would, we hope, be contemptuous of our creationists, who typically reject and deny science in favor of their senseless readings.

Weirdly, the creationists consider him one of theirs

Well he probably would have been. He was a man of his time, after all, and a Protestant, for whom making up your own theology from what you read in the bible would have been standard practice.

 

[Native]

I've always wondered how science history would have gone had Newton had access to the same material that more modern academics like Neugebauer, Friberg, Hilprecht, etc, did

My suspicion is that he would have had his mind blown

Let alone if Newton knew just a little more of the modern understanding electromagnetic forces, which Newton described in this way:

§ 4 "The Spirit"
"The General Scholium ends with a mystifying paragraph about a "certain most subtle Spirit, which pervades and lies hid in all gross bodies."

It has been largely interpreted as Newton's view and prospect of electricity, a phenomenon of which little was known at the time. Newton describes some attributes of this Spirit and concludes:

"But these are things that cannot be explained in a few words, nor are we furnished with that sufficiency of experiments which is required to an accurate determination and demonstration of the laws which this electric spirit operates".

In modern times in cosmology, the term "Spirit" is a quick way to call forward names as "crank, crackpot and idiot".

And if someone even dares to connect the here Newtonian term "spirit" to the term "electricity" as arguments in modern science, all consensus thinkers are quickly ready to smack you on your head.

 

[Polymath257]

Let alone if Newton knew just a little more of the modern understanding electromagnetic forces, which Newton described in this way:

In modern times in cosmology, the term "Spirit" is a quick way to call forward names as "crank, crackpot and idiot".

And if someone even dares to connect the here Newtonian term "spirit" to the term "electricity" in modern science", all consensus thinkers are ready to smack you on your head.

Newton did some fundamental work in optics, including the discovery that a prism will split white light into a spectrum that can then be recombined to give white light.

The early experiments on magnetism done by Gilbert had noticed its polarities by 1600, well before Newton. But the connection between this an electricity wasn't made until the early 19th century by Ampere.

Whether Newton saw his 'spirit' as having anything to do with either electricity (not well studied in Newton's time) or to magnetism (studied, but still a lot unknown) is not known.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
To me THIS is a huge problem!

Which was later fixed by Einstein.

Einstein is even worse than Newton in this specific matter.

No, his laws of motion:
1. A body at rest or in uniform motion will stay at rest or in that uniform motion unless acted upon by a force.
2. The rate of change of the momentum of an object is equal in both magnitude and direction to the total force on the object.
3. To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Since the momentum is mass times velocity and mass is constant, we get F=ma from the second law.
Newton's law of gravity is different than his laws of motion. it says that the force between two masses is directed along the line between the two masses, is attractive, proportional to the both the masses and to the inverse square of the distance between them.
From these, it is possible to not only *deduce* Kepler's laws on the motions of the planets, but also deduce the *errors* in Kepler's laws because the other planets also produce a gravitational force.

Once when you´ve explained what even Newton could´nt, I can begin to take this seriously.

 

[Native]

Whether Newton saw his 'spirit' as having anything to do with either electricity (not well studied in Newton's time) or to magnetism (studied, but still a lot unknown) is not known.

And of course modern cosmological science choses to be stuck on Newtons unexplainable *force* instead of ALSO following the guru Newtons hints about other natural forces.

 

[Onoma]

I like this quote:

"Amongst the Interpreters of the last age there is scarce one note who hath not made some discovery worth knowing, and thence seem to gather that God is about opening these mysteries. The success of others put me upon considering it; and if I have done anything which may be useful to the following writers, I have by design"

~ Sir Isaac Newton

Newton did some fundamental work in optics, including the discovery that a prism will split white light into a spectrum that can then be recombined to give white light.

Interestingly, iirc, Greeks were known to have used glass globes filled with water to split light, but I'm wagering you probably knew this already

 

[Polymath257]

And of course modern cosmological science choses to be stuck on Newtons unexplainable *force* instead of ALSO following the guru Newtons hints about other natural forces.

And, of course, you ignore the explanation given by Einstein.

Yes, there are other natural forces *also*. To each in their place, as discovered by observation and testing.

 

[Native]

No, that was NOT the whole thing. He also pointed out that the motion of the moon in its orbit could be explained by exactly the same force of gravity from the Earth.

Nope. He simply induced the same idea to the Moon by correct calculations ascribed to unknown and unexplained forces.

 

[Native]

And, of course, you ignore the explanation given by Einstein.
Yes, there are other natural forces *also*. To each in their place, as discovered by observation and testing.

We´re not discussing Einstein in this Op.

 

[Polymath257]

Nope. He simply induced the same idea to the Moon by correct calculations ascribed to unknown and unexplained forces.

Yes, the same force that makes the apple fall also keeps the moon in its orbit. The same basic equations govern both. The calculations are *based* of the force through F=ma. How can those calculation be 'correct' and the force not?

 

[Polymath257]

We´re not discussing Einstein in this Op.

And once again, Newton's applied his ideas to our solar system. The galaxy as a whole was not known about during his time. His laws of motion and proposed inverse square law of gravity served to *correct* the answers of earlier investigators. But they also served to explain the results of Galileo and Kepler.

Newton's 'action at a distance' was philosophically controversial, but the fact that it worked in practice is the only test that is relevant. And it did, spectacularly, for over 200 years. After that, Einstein's ideas modified Newton's and obtained even more accuracy.

if you want to complain that Newton's law of gravity is an action at a distance with no mechanism, you have to deal with the fact that Einstein's modifications are *not* an action at a distance.

 

[Native]

Whether Newton saw his 'spirit' as having anything to do with either electricity (not well studied in Newton's time) or to magnetism (studied, but still a lot unknown) is not known.

You quoted in this matter:

Native said: ↑
Let alone if Newton knew just a little more of the modern understanding electromagnetic forces, which Newton described in this way:

In modern times in cosmology, the term "Spirit" is a quick way to call forward names as "crank, crackpot and idiot".

And if someone even dares to connect the here Newtonian term "spirit" to the term "electricity" in modern science", all consensus thinkers are ready to smack you on your head.
---------------
Please have the curtacy not to fiddle around with my sentenses when you´re quoting me.

 

[Polymath257]

You quoted in this matter:

Native said: ↑
Let alone if Newton knew just a little more of the modern understanding electromagnetic forces, which Newton described in this way:

In modern times in cosmology, the term "Spirit" is a quick way to call forward names as "crank, crackpot and idiot".

And if someone even dares to connect the here Newtonian term "spirit" to the term "electricity" in modern science", all consensus thinkers are ready to smack you on your head.
---------------
Please have the curtacy not to fiddle around with my sentenses when you´re quoting me.

I did not 'fiddle' with your sentences. I quoted without any changes.

 

[Native]

Newton's 'action at a distance' was philosophically controversial, but the fact that it worked in practice is the only test that is relevant.

You´re conflicting and confusing mathematical calculations in a force, which per definition just is induced and not deducted by logics.

Explain the force to me before I can take it seriously.

 

[Audie]

Newton again exhumed for a science v woo woo encounter

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
To me THIS is a huge problem!

Einstein is even worse than Newton in this specific matter.

Once when you´ve explained what even Newton could´nt, I can begin to take this seriously.

If we are putting Newton in his time, the fact that his laws explained Kepler's laws as well as Galileo's observations was considered strong evidence in his favor. That is same laws could be used to 'correct' the inaccuracies in Kepler's laws as well as explain everything from statics, to the dynamics of moving things, as well as later describing the dynamics of rotating bodies, was quite sufficient reason to take Newton's ideas seriously.

That they had the issue of having a force at a distance was eventually seen a minor one compared to how much and in how many different situations Newton's ideas were found to work.

Once the study of electricity and magnetism was carried far enough, even those forces were seen as *one* of the forces to which Newton's laws could be applied. And they were successfully.

 

[Polymath257]

You´re conflicting and confusing mathematical calculations in a force, which per definition just is induced and not deducted by logics.

Explain the force to me before I can take it seriously.

OK, F=GMm/r^2, attractive and along the line between the masses. That *is* the explanation.

 

[Native]

I did not 'fiddle' with your sentences. I quoted without any changes.

Let alone if Newton knew just a little more of the modern understanding electromagnetic forces, which Newton described in this way:

You didn´t quote this sentense:

Native said: ↑
§ 4 "The Spirit"
"The General Scholium ends with a mystifying paragraph about a "certain most subtle Spirit, which pervades and lies hid in all gross bodies."

It has been largely interpreted as Newton's view and prospect of electricity, a phenomenon of which little was known at the time. Newton describes some attributes of this Spirit and concludes:

"But these are things that cannot be explained in a few words, nor are we furnished with that sufficiency of experiments which is required to an accurate determination and demonstration of the laws which this electric spirit operates".

In modern times in cosmology, the term "Spirit" is a quick way to call forward names as "crank, crackpot and idiot".

And if someone even dares to connect the here Newtonian term "spirit" to the term "electricity" as arguments in modern science, all consensus thinkers are quickly ready to smack you on your head.

 

[Polymath257]

Quotes of quotes are usually not included by the software here.