On the Shoulders of Newton . . .

[Native]

We also find in the definition-
"Abstract theory with no basis in reality"

Written and defined by an author who defined this by studying *gravity*

 

[Audie]

Written and defined by an author who defined this by studying *gravity*

Cool, a metaphysical fact!

Q-How did you know that about the author of the
first thing that pops up in google?

A-You just made it up

Guess we know who is bankrupt in the
intellectual integrity dept. here.

 

[Native]

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.

And you´re talking of assumptions? Most of the modern cosmology is based on assumptions. They just call it *theories*.

And the fact is that:
Philosophy in it´s genuine understanding, has been relieved by modern mathemagicians who looks at images observed by telescopic machines - but STILL holding on the 350 year old ideas which never was thoght fully trough because it lacks the ponderings of philosophical logics and explanations of cause and effect.

 

[Native]

NOTE: I´m out of office for now. I´ll be back in some 15 hours.

 

[Polymath257]

And you´re talking of assumptions? Most of the modern cosmology is based on assumptions. They just call it *theories*.

And the fact is that:
Philosophy in it´s genuine understanding, has been relieved by modern mathemagicians who looks at images observed by telescopic machines - but STILL holding on the 350 year old ideas which never was thoght fully trough because it lacks the ponderings of philosophical logics and explanations of cause and effect.

Nope, you got it exactly backwards. Newton's laws describe how cause and effect work. His description of the force of gravity, along with those laws of motion, allows for computation of how things move in the solar system and beyond. When the description of the force of electromagnetism was determined (Lorenz force law), those same laws of motion could be used to calculation what happens for E&M forces as well.

Philosophy has to be updated to take into account the discoveries of science over the last couple of centuries. The 'law of cause and effect' is one of those that needs to be seriously reconsidered in light of what we now know.

 

[Polymath257]

From SEP on metaphysics:

"It may also be that there is no internal unity to metaphysics. More strongly, perhaps there is no such thing as metaphysics—or at least nothing that deserves to be called a science or a study or a discipline. Perhaps, as some philosophers have proposed, no metaphysical statement or theory is either true or false. Or perhaps, as others have proposed, metaphysical theories have truth-values, but it is impossible to find out what they are. At least since the time of Hume, there have been philosophers who have proposed that metaphysics is “impossible”—either because its questions are meaningless or because they are impossible to answer."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, if the creationists focus on Newton´s religious perceptions, they´re right to do so.

Which is rather foolish since Newton clearly did not follow the Bible over reason. This was not that long after Galileo got into all sorts of trouble by supporting the beliefs of Copernicus. The
"creationists" of that time argued that the Earth was stationary and the center of everything because the Bible says that it was. He did not accept those views.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

How ironic that you complain that others cannot explain when you go for a woo woo non-explanation.

An explanation that is testable, that makes predictions, is far superior to woo woo ad hoc arguments that have no predictive or useful power.

Newton got us to the Moon and back. Einstein's relativity is needed for your sat nav devices. If you use any mapping functions or direction assistance that would be hypocritical.

 

[Clara Tea]

Link above: Sounds of Silence by Simon and Garfunkel. I think the song is about the silencing of protests of the Vietnam War (it was written in that era, and it surely resonated with young Americans). Protests were about being drafted to fight a war with those who didn't even want to fight us. As the Pentagon Papers clearly showed, all of our wars in Southeast Asia (Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos) were about containing the grown of China (or, more specifically, stopping the spread of Communism). This had nothing to do with science. Simon and Garfunkel made the point that the protests would get their messages out, despite being clubbed over their heads while peacefully assembling, even if their messages had to be written on a subway wall or tenement hall.

My point is that there is a lot to life other than science and other than religion.

Many lessons learned have more to do with religion than bible studies. For example, anti-war protests, today, might stop the war in Iraq. Why stop the war in Iraq? Well, for one, God gave Moses 10 commandments, of which, one is "thou shalt not kill," and another order from God, found distributed through Revelation, is don't go to war with Babylon, Iraq, or you will face God's wrath (for example, Revelation 15 is about seven plagues, undoubtedly including COVID).

I'm just as much into science as anyone in the Religion forum, but I also have to make room in my life for the spiritual aspects of life. I've had several science teachers who had strong moral compasses. One insisted that we ask ourselves what this science is used for....are we making an atomic bomb to destroy and terrorize (in the hands of some president who likes to play with troops as if he is a little boy playing with toy soldiers)? I asked a fellow classmate if he thought that the Bikini Atoll atomic bomb test was an intentional test to see what an atomic bomb would do if people were exposed to it (noting the later experiments in the Nevada desert in which US soldiers were marched to their eventual radiation deaths into ground zero of a nuclear explosion). My professor, Nobel Laureate, White Sands scientist, Manhatten Project scientist, and former head of the Eniwetok atomic bomb test series, overheard me, and was incensed that I would even think of something like that.

The morality (following God's laws) of scientists often doesn't matter if the little boy presidents play boom boom boom with nuclear missiles and don't have any regard for human life or the laws of God (despite their pretenses to the contrary).

RE: Descartes swirling vortexes: It is interesting to note that Newtonian laws of gravitation of each individual planet are not the only factors involved in the orbit of planets and moons. Various planets and moons also have harmonic resonances with each other. For example, the synodic period of Venus is harmonically related to the orbital period of earth. There is even a paper out there that links sunspots (caused by the 11 year rotation of the core of the sun) to the orbit of the 3 inner planets. This was drawn to my attention by a recent Nova science show about a theory that Jupiter was rapidly spiraling toward the sun, and had already gone through the asteroid belt (picking up trojan asteroids that now share its orbit around the sun in its orbital path), but was grabbed by harmonically linking to Saturn. Many of the 79 known moons of Jupiter are similarly linked to each other harmonically.

From Descartes swirling vortices, I deduce that science didn't have all of the answers back then. Nor does science have all of the answers now. But, science is getting closer and closer to the truth, and we should respect it.

Science is likely the best way out of the COVID emergency because vaccines are on their way. Science has made it possible to feed more people with drought resistant crops, cure crop diseases, and come up with more efficient means of producing food.

So, we must respect religion, respect science, and respect each other. We have to constantly be on guard against those who disrespect and defy God, especially if they constantly pretend that they are doing God's will.

 

[Native]

Nope, you got it exactly backwards. Newton's laws describe how cause and effect work.

How can you speak of *cause* as nobody can and explain scientifically what forces in *gravity* should *cause* particles and planets to pull at each other?

Explain it before you embed it in calculations all over the places.

His description of the force of gravity, along with those laws of motion, allows for computation of how things move in the solar system and beyond.

I´ve said several times that Newtons calculations of celestial planetary motions were OK, but anyone interested in calculating the planets can do the same without *incorporating gravity* as the empirical motions of the planets have been observed and noted several thousands years ago, long before Newton were a warm glimse in his parents eyes and then invented his *gravity*

Philosophy has to be updated to take into account the discoveries of science over the last couple of centuries. The 'law of cause and effect' is one of those that needs to be seriously reconsidered in light of what we now know.

I´m not surprised you want to change the scientific method of explaining *causes and effects* as nobody can explain what force in the gravitation theory *causes* effects. This fiddling method of changing or adding things in this *gravity theory* is a revealing hallmark.

And now philosophy too has to be updated? What about using the method and it´s logics before changing it´s definitions? Even here, Newton, otherwise titled as a Natural Philosopher, failed to use the method thoroughly before he made wild guesses about the falling apple.

 

[Native]

From SEP on metaphysics:

"It may also be that there is no internal unity to metaphysics. More strongly, perhaps there is no such thing as metaphysics—or at least nothing that deserves to be called a science or a study or a discipline. Perhaps, as some philosophers have proposed, no metaphysical statement or theory is either true or false. Or perhaps, as others have proposed, metaphysical theories have truth-values, but it is impossible to find out what they are. At least since the time of Hume, there have been philosophers who have proposed that metaphysics is “impossible”—either because its questions are meaningless or because they are impossible to answer."

I´ve already provided the definition here
"Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.

If someone have problems understanding this, all I can say is that they suffers from a serious disconnection to *all things natural*

 

[Subduction Zone]

I´ve already provided the definition here
"Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.

If someone have problems understanding this, all I can say is that they suffers from a serious disconnection to *all things naturally*

So you are claiming that metaphysics is nonsense. Thanks, that clears that up.

 

[Native]

I'm just as much into science as anyone in the Religion forum, but I also have to make room in my life for the spiritual aspects of life.

Thanks for your post and Me too

RE: Descartes swirling vortexes: It is interesting to note that Newtonian laws of gravitation of each individual planet are not the only factors involved in the orbit of planets and moons. Various planets and moons also have harmonic resonances with each other.

I agree and believe in the Descartes *swirling vorticies* and the need for more logical explanations of celestial motions - and I´m familiar with *harmonic resonances* in cosmos from a spontaneous out-of body-experience when sleeping.

RE: Descartes swirling vortexes: It is interesting to note that Newtonian laws of gravitation of each individual planet are not the only factors involved in the orbit of planets and moons.

In my conviction, it is impossible to deal with the motions in our Solar System without including the explanation for the formation of our Milky Way galaxy, as the Solar System is an orbiting part of the galactic rotation and formation.

There is even a paper out there that links sunspots (caused by the 11 year rotation of the core of the sun . . .

This rhythm can only be explained by including the electromagnetic fundamental forces. IMO it´s a question of rhythmic electromagnetic charges and discharges.

From Descartes swirling vortices, I deduce that science didn't have all of the answers back then. Nor does science have all of the answers now. But, science is getting closer and closer to the truth, and we should respect it.

Sure we shall respect it - but also criticize it when the scientific method isn´t followed as intended.

My point is that there is a lot to life other than science and other than religion.

And my point in this case is that ancient cultural Stories of Creation - if interpreted into modern terms - are a huge help for modern cosmology and astrophysics as our ancestors had a cyclical word perception compared to the modern linear timeline assertion connected to a *Big Bang*

 

[Native]

Subject: Newton`s *double headed arrow* "force" compared to René Descartes *swirling vorticies*.

Without me knowing excactly what made Descartes to claim *whirling vorticies*, it is evidently correct as a cosmological model when looking at images of galaxies from telescopes which without any doubts at all confirms Descartes.

Galaxies are found in three main types: Ordinary spirals, Barred spirals and Cluster galaxies, where the two first evidently can rotate in *both directions*

The consensus explanation of formation in the *double headed Newtonian force* goes much like this:
"Cosmic clouds of gas and dust attracts via the *two headed arrow* "force" to form stars which radiates fundamental elements out in space which then again *accreates "gravitationally" to form planets and their eventual moons".

That is: We have both attracting and repulsing forces in play here and the only natural force which can apply logically to these motions, is of course the qualities of the Electromagnetic Force. and it´s two polarities.

An electric current don´t propagate in a line but as a *swirling (Descartes) motion* as double helix of force which, according to the discovery by the Danish scientist, Hans Christian Ørsted, caused perpendicular magnetic fields outside the wire to move a compass needle.

This is the true philosophical and scientifical *E&M action on it´s surroundings* with both an attractive and repulsive motion.

This *action at distance* terminology was heavily criticized in the idea of Newton´s "gravity" where Newton, and rightfully so, was accused to insert *occult agencies* in his theory.

STILL this *Newtonian occult agency* is taken to be the one and only truth in much of the standing convensus astrophysics and cosmology.

"If you cannot see the swirling vorticies of Light and Magnetism all over in cosmos and deduct the logics of these vorticies, you always can lean your speculative head and stand on the shoulders of Newton´s *occult agencies* all it´s assumed and connected dark matters and energies in the Universe".

More on Electromagnetic Swirling Vorticies here - and if you´re googling "electric vorticies" you¨ll get Ca. 3.340.000 related hits. That should get any Newtonian gravity believer busy and swirling in the head for quite a while.

I go all in for René Descartes and for that matter also all in for our ancestral SWIRLING VORTICIES from the Bronze Age as seen below from Newgrange in County Meath, Ireland,

Swirling Vorticies was the norm all over the World in ancient cultures. And so was also their symbol of galaxies here below as a carved figur on a rock surface.

Or here on this necklace artifact from the Bronze Age

Our ancestors were not philosophers or scientists. They just were naturally connected to all physical and metaphysical areas and they had the very natural conviction that "everything is connected".

 

[Polymath257]

How can you speak of *cause* as nobody can and explain scientifically what forces in *gravity* should *cause* particles and planets to pull at each other?

Irrelevant. The equatios of motion show that forces cause acceleration.

Explain it before you embed it in calculations all over the places.

That is not necessary if the results of doing so agree with actual observations. The *only* question is that: do the calculations based on the theory agree with observations more closely than any competing theory? if they do, then it is the best theory on the block. If not, then it loses. if it can't actually make any predictions about the result of observations, then it is not a scientific theory at all. Guess where Plasma Cosmology and EY fall in this?

I´ve said several times that Newtons calculations of celestial planetary motions were OK, but anyone interested in calculating the planets can do the same without *incorporating gravity* as the empirical motions of the planets have been observed and noted several thousands years ago, long before Newton were a warm glimse in his parents eyes and then invented his *gravity*

Yes, you said this. But you are wrong in this. The 'empirical motions known for thousands of years' were *very* inaccurate. They simply didn't give the results at the level of accuracy required, even for medieval societies. That is why alternatives were searched for even before Kepler.

Kepler's laws were FAR more accurate than what had been known before. But there were still inaccuracies.

When Newton proposed his theory of gravity, Kepler's laws were explained by the action of gravity from the sun. ALSO, the inaccuracies in Kepler's laws were explained by the action of gravity from other planets.

So, yes, there were some patters of motion by the planets known for a LONG time. But they were very general and not very accurate. Newton's laws (and later Einstein's) were FAR, FAR more accurate.

What is interesting is that you complain about the motions of stars in the galaxy and how Newton's laws based on the known mass didn't work. But, even there, Newton's laws were FAR more accurate than anything the ancients did in our own solar system.

I´m not surprised you want to change the scientific method of explaining *causes and effects* as nobody can explain what force in the gravitation theory *causes* effects. This fiddling method of changing or adding things in this *gravity theory* is a revealing hallmark.

I'm not changing the scientific method at all. Make a hypothesis (gravity as an inverse square force). Make a prediction (use laws of motion to predict location of the planets). Do observation to test the predictions (discovery of Neptune anyone?). Repeat.

What do you propose as an alternative? Can you make specific predictions of observation based on your hypothesis or not? if not then it isn't even under consideration.

And now philosophy too has to be updated? What about using the method and it´s logics before changing it´s definitions? Even here, Newton, otherwise titled as a Natural Philosopher, failed to use the method thoroughly before he made wild guesses about the falling apple.

ALL science was 'natural philosophy' until the 18th century.

Among other things that need to be changed: the notions of 'substance', of 'cause and effect', of 'properties', the character of 'time'. These are some of the big ones that have not been updated based on what we have learned in the last century or so.

 

[Polymath257]

I´ve already provided the definition here
"Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.

If someone have problems understanding this, all I can say is that they suffers from a serious disconnection to *all things natural*

Again, I have no problem understanding the definition. Nor does the author of the piece in the SEP.

The problem is that metaphysics is fundamentally flawed and needs to get over the Aristotelian remains and update itself based on what we have discovered over the last century or so. And the author questions whether there is any way to get knowledge from metaphysics at all.

 

[Audie]

I´ve already provided the definition here
"Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.

If someone have problems understanding this, all I can say is that they suffers from a serious disconnection to *all things natural*

What did metaphysics discover after centuries of examining?

 

[Native]

Irrelevant. The equatios of motion show that forces cause acceleration.

So does the same when you´re pulling your bicycle uphill, now with the difference that you then can EXPLAIN what forces are at play, contrary to the *occult agency* fostered by Newton.

That is not necessary if the results of doing so agree with actual observations. The *only* question is that: do the calculations based on the theory agree with observations more closely than any competing theory? if they do, then it is the best theory on the block. If not, then it loses.

Which was excactly what happend with Newtons guessworks ideas when it was tested against the galactic reality. But what happend then? The Newtonians just added yet another *occult agency* of "dark matter" instead of accepting the loss! There you have your gravity theory in a nuttshell.

And for the same reason I cant take your other comments which belongs to such an *occult agency department* seriously at all as I´m not believing in ghosts.

ALL science was 'natural philosophy' until the 18th century.

And then all it all went wrong in pure mathemathical number speculations, starting with Newton.

 

[Polymath257]

So does the same when you´re pulling your bicycle uphill, now with the difference that you then can EXPLAIN what forces are at play, contrary to the *occult agency* fostered by Newton.

One of the forces on the bike *is* gravity.

Which was excactly what happend with Newtons guessworks ideas when it was tested against the galactic reality. But what happend then? The Newtonians just added yet another *occult agency* of "dark matter" instead of accepting the loss! There you have your gravity theory in a nuttshell.

And for the same reason I cant take your other comments which belongs to such an *occult agency department* seriously at all as´I´m not believing in ghosts.

And yet, Newton's ideas STILL gave results that are FAR more accurate than anything the EU has proposed.

And then all it all went wrong in pure mathemathical number speculations, starting with Newton.

Actually, that was its greatest success. It showed that philosophical debate is really quite worthless when it comes to actually understanding what is going on in the world. Instead, we have to actually observe the world FIRST and then make hypotheses that can be tested.

Mathematical theories give the precision that leads to high degrees of testability. That is *why* science has progressed so much in the last 300 years.

 

[Native]

Actually, that was its greatest success. It showed that philosophical debate is really quite worthless when it comes to actually understanding what is going on in the world. Instead, we have to actually observe the world FIRST and then make hypotheses that can be tested.

Oh, don´t get me laughing out laud!

Sir Isaac Newton PRS (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1726/27[a]) was an English mathematician, physicist, astronomer, theologian, and author (described in his own day as a "natural philosopher").

But then again, I have to agree with you regarding your belowed friend, Newton. HIS natural philosophical skills was nothing to write home about, His *natural philosophical discussion* primary dealt only of watching an apple fall from a tree.

Instead he could´ve studied his ancestors ideas of a cosmos of swirling vorticies also as suggested by Descartes, but the mathetician rejected the obvious solution, much as your good self.