Was Newton Full of It?

[PaleFace]

I'm leaning towards "yes".

E Michael Jones makes a good case that all Newton did was repackage alchemic/occult concepts from the Babylonian school, information which he no doubt acquired via the you-know-whos, who were up to their usual tricks in Europe at the time:

So, if Newton's "forces" are based on alchemic concepts of "love" and "strife" and not on what we would consider white lab coat style objective study and analysis, so why is this the basis of our understanding of the cosmos? Well, because our civilization was hijacked, ofc.

Going further, even the concept of Gravity seems bunk. That is, yes, objects do fall to the ground. Newton was not the first person in thousands of years of human existence to notice that. But saying that it was a constant force - G - and that it worked on the basis of the concept of "mass" didn't really explain anything. We still don't really know why gravity does what it does. We can only measure its effects - something that was done prior to Newton as well, (the Greeks and the medievals weren't dummies.) But we are no closer to understanding it. Furthermore, there is ample evidence that G is anything but constant and that it fluctuates from place to place on our planet.

The older, Greek concept of the world was based on Teleos or, from what I understand, the universe being moved by learning or moving towards a goal. Intelligent design, not the void with its impersonal forces simply "acting" on objects. This was scrapped by the Satanic "Enlightenment" alchemists in favor of the model that we are told is !SCIENCE! now.

Incredibly, after I came across this information, I realized that I had heard the concept from Rupert Sheldrake before with his idea of "morphic fields" and the ability of animals and even inanimate objects to learn as if they were moving towards some sort of final completed form.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but it occurs to me that Sheldrake has basically rediscovered Teleos - an ancient Greek concept and has started designing scientific experiments to prove its existence.

Incredible stuff.

 

[Voyageur]

E Michael Jones makes a good case that all Newton did was repackage...

I've not watched this yet, however in a bit of a cross reference that may have nothing to do with this film, the historian, H. Graham Lowry, paints a rather unfaltering picture of Newton well before modern history may seem to have built him up - 'repackaging' may indeed have been the case which also obscured others. Then, much of this came in the form of a struggle to take over control of the Royal Society by a host of unsavory characters, of whom Newton was though of fondly; something to do with the Newtonian-gift of his niece to certain on-high deciders to use as they pleased. Like certain other characters then, this was though of as no big deal; and that is not the half of it.

The way it is described in this book, Newton would be a good match to some of the more deviant circles of our times of late in the news. Back in his time, there was the Newton-Leibniz debate:

- "Scots-Irishman James Logan (1674-1751), who became the leading Leibniz scholar of his time in America, and a dominant intellectual and political figure in Pennsylvania for much of his life there. Logan's writings include a defense of Leibniz against Isaac Newton's absurd claims of inventing calculus, which Sir Isaac had incompetently plagiarized from Leibniz. The Newton-Leibniz controversy of 1711-1713 had been faked by the Whig Junto to discredit Leibniz's growing influence in Queen Anne's cabinet-then headed by Robert Hartley, who brought Leibniz's ally Jonathan Swift into his inner circle."

The Queen's cabinet was soon after crushed (the power struggle is well explained), and it is rather out of the pages of Political Ponerology that it happened. Newton was there at the peck and call of his associates, and this includes some bad-ass depraved ones.

Newton and co. where most assuredly brought under the pen (Jonathan Swift, Ben Franklin, Daniel Defoe (The Plague Years) and more) in the guise of characters in acts that hid their names but not their actions (people then knew exactly who they were and the publishers were often punished). Thus, Newton's actions seemed to be very well known back then, and he took control of the Royal Society (as explained in the book) against the wishes of many of its members.

If there is any weight to the controversy, modern historians have done a nice job omitting difficulties and rising up as truth what was once debated as false. If Newton had done these things, what else was he capable of doing to maintain his image? Moreover, his image seems pristine in the scientific community today, or so saith google.

I'll have a look at the film when a chance arises.

 

[harpalchemist]

By far the best resource for understanding the Newton scam and Liebniz et al being sidelined is Executive Intelligence Review and Fidelio journal on the Schiller institute.

FIDELIO MAGAZINE Front Covers and PDF links

Larouche's articles on Liebniz,Newton, Cusa,Kepler are exceptional.

 

[psychegram]

Many years ago I read Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle, in which both Newton and Leibniz figure prominently. The books are based on extensive historical research, and give a window into the personalities and philosophies of the two men. Newton comes off as a bitter, cruel, monomaniacal sociopath. Leibniz, by contrast, is a playful wizard, with an energetic and creative mind and a kindly manner.

Their philosophies are completely at odds with another. Newton showed the world as a dead mechanism, intricate clockwork wound up by a disinterested deity that, following the moment of creation, stepped back and watched the world unfold according to purely deterministic principles. There is no room in Newton's world view for free will, or indeed anything recognizably alive.

Leibniz, in his Monadologie, portrayed the world as fundamentally alive and ensouled. His world is composed of monads, particles not just of matter but also of elementary consciousness, aware of and reacting to their world, possessed of the most basic aspects of free will.

Newton's crude materialism won the day in the scientific imagination, with far reaching consequences not just for how science is conducted but for how humans interact with our world. But Leibniz' monads are quite clearly a more accurate conception of material reality. Everything discovered about quantum mechanics in the 20th century is most easily explained by consciousness, awareness, free will, etc., extending all the way down the chain of being to the most elementary particles.

It's certainly no accident that the Newtonian worldview was evangelized, and the Leibnizian worldview ignored and forgotten.

 

[woneill1701]

It is no accident that we use Calculus today and not Fluctions!

What Newton presented in his “Method of Fluctions” had almost nothing recognizable to anyone who is familiar with modern Calculus, which is largely as originally presented by Leibnitz.

But the true genius of Newton (and he WAS a genius - regardless of any personality defects, alchemism, or plagiarism), was that he figured out a way to systematically simplify complex dynamic systems into smaller independent interactions that were self contained and solvable. (Effectively forming the basis of vector analysis and mechanics looong before anyone else developed a form of maths to represent such things.)

Before Newton, nobody was able to reduce complexity of such interactions into a calculable form.

I remember being taught Newtonian Dynamics at school, and was both unimpressed and terribly disappointed: “Is this it? Is this all he did?”

It wasn’t until years later, when reading an excellent book called “An Introduction To General Systems Thinking” by Gerald Weinberg, that the problem faced by Newton and the physicists/mathematicians of his day, were explained: They had no formal mechanism for complexity reduction, and after Newton they did.

His approach to dynamic systems was so profound that it transformed all mathematical/physical thinking to the point that it is embedded in everything we do today.

Everyone - including kids at school - now takes it for granted, and are unimpressed when they encounter it for the first time. But the genius IS there!

 

[PaleFace]

I've not watched this yet, however in a bit of a cross reference that may have nothing to do with this film, the historian, H. Graham Lowry, paints a rather unfaltering picture of Newton well before modern history may seem to have built him up - 'repackaging' may indeed have been the case which also obscured others. Then, much of this came in the form of a struggle to take over control of the Royal Society by a host of unsavory characters, of whom Newton was though of fondly; something to do with the Newtonian-gift of his niece to certain on-high deciders to use as they pleased. Like certain other characters then, this was though of as no big deal; and that is not the half of it.

The way it is described in this book, Newton would be a good match to some of the more deviant circles of our times of late in the news. Back in his time, there was the Newton-Leibniz debate:



The Queen's cabinet was soon after crushed (the power struggle is well explained), and it is rather out of the pages of Political Ponerology that it happened. Newton was there at the peck and call of his associates, and this includes some bad-ass depraved ones.

Newton and co. where most assuredly brought under the pen (Jonathan Swift, Ben Franklin, Daniel Defoe (The Plague Years) and more) in the guise of characters in acts that hid their names but not their actions (people then knew exactly who they were and the publishers were often punished). Thus, Newton's actions seemed to be very well known back then, and he took control of the Royal Society (as explained in the book) against the wishes of many of its members.

If there is any weight to the controversy, modern historians have done a nice job omitting difficulties and rising up as truth what was once debated as false. If Newton had done these things, what else was he capable of doing to maintain his image? Moreover, his image seems pristine in the scientific community today, or so saith google.

I'll have a look at the film when a chance arises.

Yes, Newton was a despicable individual with personal demons and a possible homo-sado streak. Leibnitz was the Tesla to his Edison. Newton was basically a usurer and a charlatan. He probably had brain damage from all the mercury he played around with in his lab. His satanic ideology was basically used as political justification for the new revolutionary regime that took over the UK. As usual, politics was used to manipulate !SCIENCE!.

 

[PaleFace]

His approach to dynamic systems was so profound that it transformed all mathematical/physical thinking to the point that it is embedded in everything we do today.

Everyone - including kids at school - now takes it for granted, and are unimpressed when they encounter it for the first time. But the genius IS there!

Yeah, but it was wrong and it set us back, like pretty much every invention that came out of the so-called Enlightenment, which was basically a cultural demolition project to bury the old medieval and greek world and switch Europe over to a model based on occultism and alchemy.

 

[Ina]

I started to watch the video and I stopped when principia (In Principia Mathematica) was pronounced in the same ’funny’ way like the word ‘facie’ (like in prima facie) on the tv news. As I could not concentrate on Newton, I retrieved a copy of the book he mentions in the beginning of the video , The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History. Just finished the Introduction and I think it will be time well spent going through a thousand pages or so.
Thank you PaleFace for posing the video.

 

[PaleFace]

The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History. Just finished the Introduction and I think it will be time well spent going through a thousand pages or so.
Thank you PaleFace for posing the video.

EMJ is a goldmine of counter-semitism. I hope to get to his new book on Logos by Christmas, it seems to be a real banger.

 

[woneill1701]

Yeah, but it was wrong and it set us back,

What was so wrong with Newtonian Mechanics and his approach to simplifying complex systems, and how did it set us back?

I say this from a position of believing that any science that was potentially weaponizable was effectively suppressed since around 1900, but I don’t understand how simple mechanics set us back...

 

[psychegram]

What was so wrong with Newtonian Mechanics and his approach to simplifying complex systems, and how did it set us back?

I say this from a position of believing that any science that was potentially weaponizable was effectively suppressed since around 1900, but I don’t understand how simple mechanics set us back...

My take is that a theoretical framework can often give mathematical results that usefully describe reality, in the sense of providing approximately accurate predictions, whilst simultaneously giving a very poor objective description of reality. The Ptolemaic model of the solar system is the archetypal example. It also seems likely that Einstein's general relativity is a similar case. One could also point to the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

In this case, Newtonian mechanics gives a way of thinking about certain physical systems that, under certain specific conditions, enables their behavior to be "understood". But is it true? The dead universe he describes is clearly very far from the truth. And from a cultural standpoint, that dead universe - cosmos as clockwork - has been the primary effect of his system.

 

[woneill1701]

My take is that a theoretical framework can often give mathematical results that usefully describe reality, in the sense of providing approximately accurate predictions, whilst simultaneously giving a very poor objective description of reality. The Ptolemaic model of the solar system is the archetypal example. It also seems likely that Einstein's general relativity is a similar case. One could also point to the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

In this case, Newtonian mechanics gives a way of thinking about certain physical systems that, under certain specific conditions, enables their behavior to be "understood". But is it true? The dead universe he describes is clearly very far from the truth. And from a cultural standpoint, that dead universe - cosmos as clockwork - has been the primary effect of his system.

Clearly, none of it is true!

All of science and engineering is based on models that are adequate enough to support their intended purpose.

I get that when these models are presented as “truth” or “laws” they will create the wrong impression that there is nothing more to know.

I also get that trying to teach a typical bricklayer quantum physics is not going to help them do their job.

I am trying to determine if, based on what @PaleFace said before, by adopting Newtonian Mechanics in the day, some other, more profound and insightful approach was suppressed. (And, more importantly, what was it?)

As background to my quest, I found out 10 years after university, that Vector maths was a “simplified” version of what it could/should have been (Geometric Algebra), and had I been taught that from scratch, Physics would still be my great love today.

Instead, at University, Vector maths was rammed down my throat, and when I challenged its inconsistencies, and asked why it was the way it was, I was met with anger - mainly because the folks involved had never themselves been taught why.

I ended up losing faith in Science in general because these folks knew nothing about the truth - they only knew the model and they all believed that was the truth!

Since then I found out that Vector maths was the way it was because it was a constrained subset of Geometric Algebra, which is itself a constrained subset of Clifford Algebra, which is itself...

Recently I have started re-learning maths “from the ground up” so I can re-discover my joy of Physics, but based on real understanding of what is true and knowable, vs what is just a model.

Could Newtonian Dynamics be wrong and should it be replaced with a better model? That is what I am trying to get to.

 

[psychegram]

Clearly, none of it is true

It's a truism that no model is true, but that wasn't really my point.

All of science and engineering is based on models that are adequate enough to support their intended purpose.

I get that when these models are presented as “truth” or “laws” they will create the wrong impression that there is nothing more to know.

The Ptolemaic and Copernican models predicted planetary positions with about equal precision, so one wasn't preferred over the other on that basis alone. Yet clearly the Copernican model came much closer to the truth.

The key lesson is that it seems that a property of mathematics is that multiple mathematical descriptions can give useful and equivalently precise results, while differing wildly in the accuracy with which they depict reality. Which is what I'm suggesting is the case with Newton: it's not that his mechanics don't work, it's that the mechanical depiction of reality is fundamentally and deeply misleading.

 

[woneill1701]

it's that the mechanical depiction of reality is fundamentally and deeply misleading.

I do get that!

What I am attempting to ask is: What model should have been taught at the time to be used practically in life of the day, and also as the basis for modern physics?

Was there some ancient/nascent holistic alternative that Newtonian Materialism displaced in the same way that Vectors displaced both Quaternions and Clifford/Geometric Algebra as a tool for representing dimensional space?

 

[moyal]

Miles Mathis about Newton:
-> http://mileswmathis.com/newton.pdf