On the Shoulders of Newton . . .

[Native]

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

You´re not passing by me by *explaining* an unknown an induced force by numbers. Get on and EXPLAIN the force without numbers: Is it working by rubber strands or what?

 

[Native]

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

OK but then use the old copy paste method instead of leaving misconceptions in the thread.

 

[Polymath257]

OK but then use the old copy paste method instead of leaving msconceptions in the thread.

It is quite easy to read your actual post. I simply quoted your post and responded to the content.

Notice your own quote of the same post did not include the secondary quote (post #33).

 

[Native]

It is quite easy to read your actual post. I simply quoted your post and responded to the content

And what do readers easily make out of this quotation of yours:

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".
--------
Obviously this incomplete quotation of yours easily gives the impression that Newton determined electricity and spirtual thoughts of cosmos to be thought by cranks, crackpots and idiots.

Which of course fit´s you nicely, right?

 

[Polymath257]

And what do readers easily make out of this quotation of yours:

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".
--------
Obviously this quotation of yours easily gives the impression that Newton determined electricity and spirtual thoughts of cosmos to be thought by cranks, crackpots and idiots.

Which of course fit´s you nicely, right?

Not at all how I read this. I read it as Newton speculating about a 'spirit' inside all matter and that you see modern cosmology as attributing anything identifying that 'spirit' with 'electricity' to being from 'cranks, crackpots, and idiots'. Given that Newton would not have had any ideas about the modern description of electricity, that is the most reasonable reading I can see.

 

[Native]

Not at all how I read this. I read it as Newton speculating about a 'spirit' inside all matter and that you see modern cosmology as attributing anything identifying that 'spirit' with 'electricity' to being from 'cranks, crackpots, and idiots'.

Given that Newton would not have had any ideas about the modern description of electricity, that is the most reasonable reading I can see.

And the meaning in the last sentence was excactly what you missed in your quotation, hence the readers also were hindered from getting your otherwise OK conclusion here.

If the RF program can´t make quotations of quotations, then get it sorted out

 

[Polymath257]

You´re not passing by me by *explaining* an unknown an induced force by numbers. Get on and EXPLAIN the force without numbers: Is it working by rubber strands or what?

It is not a mechanical thing. The force is between objects and at a distance in Newtonian theory. That *is* the explanation.

 

[Polymath257]

And the meaning in the last sentence was excactly what you missed in your quotation, hence the readers also were hindered from getting your otherwise OK conclusion here.

If the RF program can´t make quotations of quotations, then get it sorted out

Sorry, the software isn't what we would like, either. But it is what we have.

 

[Native]

§ 2 Newton´s rejection of Cartesian Vortices
In Newton´s own time he was titled as a Natural Philosopher. Still, he rejects earlier philosophical thoughts based on *mechanical philophy* as decribed below:

"In the first paragraph of the General Scholium, Newton attacks René Descartes' model of the solar system. Descartes and his supporters were followers of mechanical philosophy, a form of natural philosophy popular in the 17th century which maintained that nature and natural beings act similar to machines.

In his book The World, Descartes suggests that the creation of the solar system and the circular motion of the planets around the Sun can be explained with the phenomena of "swirling vortices". Descartes also claimed that the world is made out of tiny "corpuscles" of matter, and that no vacuum could exist".

"Descartes' model did not cohere with the ideas introduced in the first edition of the Principia (1687). Newton simply rejected Descartes' "corpuscles and vortices" theory and suggested that gravitational force acts upon celestial bodies regardless of the vast empty interstellar space in between".

Today, modern science observes all kinds of "swirling vorticies" both on and above the Earth and far out in space.

And Descartes´ *tiny corpuscles of matter* fits nicely to (E&M) governed atoms, molecules and cells which makes forms everywhere in micro- and macrocosm.

It´s only in the orthodox Newtonian gravity department who primarily believes in an unknown force which unfortunately have caused all kinds of further induced occult forces and energies.

 

[Native]

It is not a mechanical thing. The force is between objects and at a distance in Newtonian theory. That *is* the explanation.

I know, *gravity* is not a mechanical thing. It´s a metaphysical thing going on i some minds.

 

[Polymath257]

I know, it´s not a mechanical thing. It´s a metaphysical thing going on i some minds.

As always, the first step is to get a description that is testable, and makes predictions that work.

Once that is accomplished, the philosophers can rationalize it all they want. What they say isn't particularly relevant to the science.

Metaphysics has made itself irrelevant.

 

[Native]

Metaphysics has made itself irrelevant.

Maybe you should get updated on the definition of metaphysics before you state anything?

Excerpt:
"Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. Metaphysics is considered one of the four main branches of philosophy, along with epistemology, logic, and ethics".

Especially the cause and effect, and logic issues is important as an analysing method of the Newtonian gravity hyphothesis.

 

[Polymath257]

Maybe you should get updated on the definition of metaphysics before you state anything?

Yes, that is what I was talking about. Philosophical jibber-jabber.

 

[Audie]

As always, the first step is to get a description that is testable, and makes predictions that work.

Once that is accomplished, the philosophers can rationalize it all they want. What they say isn't particularly relevant to the science.

Metaphysics has made itself irrelevant.

"Metaphysics " is a word used to identify the shortcut to knowing more than any scientist.

There is another active thread by a different seeker trying the same thing.

 

[ChristineM]

We´re not discussing Einstein in this Op.

See post #25

 

[Native]

Yes, that is what I was talking about. Philosophical jibber-jabber.

Running out of factual arguments now? Or didn´t you read the linked contents and the meaning at all?

 

[Audie]

Yes, that is what I was talking about. Philosophical jibber-jabber.

We also find in the definition-

"Abstract theory with no basis in reality"

 

[Polymath257]

Maybe you should get updated on the definition of metaphysics before you state anything?

Excerpt:
"Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. Metaphysics is considered one of the four main branches of philosophy, along with epistemology, logic, and ethics".

Especially the cause and effect, and logic issues is important as an analysing method of the Newtonian gravity hyphothesis.

Yes, I understand what metaphysics is. But i also know that philosophers are usually unqualified to discuss these matters while actual physicists do a much better job and aren't tied to the outmoded thoughts of Aristotle.

Metaphysics is largely irrelevant to anything other than metaphysics.

 

[Audie]

Running out of factual arguments now? Or didn´t you read the linked contents and the meaning at all?

Here, read this then tell us you can say what metaphysics really is.
Nobody else seems to know.



Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Polymath257]

Running out of factual arguments now? Or didn´t you read the linked contents and the meaning at all?

Thinking that philosophy is the same as factual is part of the problem here. Metaphysics tends towards very outmoded ways of thinking that don't take into account the actual discoveries of science. By staying with those outmoded ways, it thereby makes itself irrelevant.

It is my position that much of metaphysics needs to be discarded and re-thought. It assumes too much and is way too classically based in its ideas.