On the Shoulders of Newton . . .

[Polymath257]

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 were nothing to write home about.

Once again, Newton was both the first modern thinker and the last medieval one. And, again, the term 'scientists' was not even invented in Newton's time.

Philosophy is essentially useless in actually understanding the world.

 

[Audie]

Once again, Newton was both the first modern thinker and the last medieval one. And, again, the term 'scientists' was not even invented in Newton's time.

Philosophy is essentially useless in actually understanding the world.

You have a PhD?

"Philosophy " is a lot like "metaphysics"
meaning whatever a person wants to say it means.

Both are similar to religion, as our hero
has made clear, in that they are used by
a certain sort to lay claim to direct knowledge
of a higher wisdom.

There is great appeal to those who are not
into the hard work involved in the long hours
of study amd thinking that it takes to gain
an understanding of, say, physics.

Direct insight from out of body or gods word
is so much better! Direct access to the intellectual high ground from which one
can look down and laugh.

 

[Native]

Once again, Newton was both the first modern thinker and the last medieval one. And, again, the term 'scientists' was not even invented in Newton's time.

I really don´t care of ANY terms of educations. What I care about, is natural explanations of a natural cosmos in a natural Universe.

Philosophy is essentially useless in actually understanding the world

I think you should have your fucus on changing your approach to *understanding the world* before you demands changes of the consensus definition of the subject.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I really don´t care of ANY terms of educations. What i care about, is natural explanations of a natural cosmos in a natural Universe.

I think you should have your fucus on changing your approach to *understanding the world* before you demands changes of the consensus definition of the subject.

You should at least care if your beliefs are right or wrong.

 

[Native]

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

And your uphill motion is all driven by atoms in molecules and cells in your body which works by E&M forces to drive your good self and your bike.

Now THAT`s the essence of involving Natural Philosophy.

 

[Polymath257]

I really don´t care of ANY terms of educations. What I care about, is natural explanations of a natural cosmos in a natural Universe.

I think you should have your fucus on changing your approach to *understanding the world* before you demands changes of the consensus definition of the subject.

The viewpoint I have towards the world *is* the changed view. it is the one that questions Aristotle and the old metaphysics. Your term 'natural explanations' is one part of the problem: an explanation is a theory about how things work. And the theory of gravity does that incredibly well, whether you want to admit it or not.

 

[Polymath257]

And your uphill motion is all driven by atoms in molecules and cells in your body which works by E&M forces to drive your good self and your bike.

Now THAT`s the essence of involving Natural Philosophy.

Yes. And it is the net force on the bike after adding the vector force of pushing and the vector force of gravity and the vector force from the ground that determines if the bike goes up the hill or not. You have to consider *all* of the forces.

As an easy example, if you don't push hard enough (with enough force), the bike won't go up the hill. It will, instead, roll down the hill because of gravity.

 

[Left Coast]

You have a PhD?

"Philosophy " is a lot like "metaphysics"
meaning whatever a person wants to say it means.

Both are similar to religion, as our hero
has made clear, in that they are used by
a certain sort to lay claim to direct knowledge
of a higher wisdom.

There is great appeal to those who are not
into the hard work involved in the long hours
of study amd thinking that it takes to gain
an understanding of, say, physics.

Direct insight from out of body or gods word
is so much better! Direct access to the intellectual high ground from which one
can look down and laugh.

This spits in the face of quite a lot of people who have dedicated their careers to philosophy, which is quite a bit more substantive than woo. The notion that scientific pursuits are the only ones worth pursuing, or the only ones that require intellectual rigor, is precisely the kind of condescending arrogance of which you seem to accuse philosophers.

 

[Audie]

This spits in the face of quite a lot of people who have dedicated their careers to philosophy, which is quite a bit more substantive than woo. The notion that scientific pursuits are the only ones worth pursuing, or the only ones that require intellectual rigor, is precisely the kind of condescending arrogance of which you seem to accuse philosophers.

Well, sorry, it was not intended so.

It was directed to those who do as I said.
We also see people abusing 'science" to their
ends too.

I had a philosophy professor who was such
a mind opener, I still think back to things he said.
Loved his course.

Philosophy was very useful to me in taking
thec LSAT.

Utility aside, arguing obscurae is great sport.


No insult or slight AT ALL intended for those
of religious or philosophical persuasion who
are dedicated to intellectual honesty.they are a
source of much insight.

For those to whom my comments apply..
no takes backs, My apology to those to
anyone who i unintentionally slighted.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
And your uphill motion is all driven by atoms in molecules and cells in your body which works by E&M forces to drive your good self and your bike.

Now THAT`s the essence of involving Natural Philosophy.

As an easy example, if you don't push hard enough (with enough force), the bike won't go up the hill. It will, instead, roll down the hill because of gravity.

And if you cut off the biomagnetic force in you body, you wouldn´t move anywhere and your body will be pressed to the ground by the atmospheric pressure.

You have to consider *all* of the forces.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
I really don´t care of ANY terms of educations. What I care about, is natural explanations of a natural cosmos in a natural Universe.

I think you should have your fucus on changing your approach to *understanding the world* before you demands changes of the consensus definition of the subject.

Your term 'natural explanations' is one part of the problem: an explanation is a theory about how things work.

Nonsense An explanation is HOW things ARE working.

And the theory of gravity does that incredibly well, whether you want to admit it or not.

I would admit it if it was explained by the natural philosophical method in where *cause and effect* has to be explained with words and sentenses.

Anyone can invent things and forces which cannot be explained, not even by themselves - as your dear Newton did with his *accult force agency*. And what his followers have done for decades, inventing *dark matter*, *dark holes* and *dark energy*.

 

[viole]

And the - IMO unnecessary - fight between religion and science still goes on . . .

Is there still a fight?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Native]

Is there still a fight?

Ciao

Not in mind there´s not.
I find ancient religious and mythical Stories of Creation just as important as modern science - in some cases even more important too, as the ancient stories contains cyclical informations and explanations compared to the modern and speculative *linear thinking*.

 

[viole]

I find ancient religious and mythical Stories of Creation just as important as modern science

Can we get a vaccine from those ancient myths, or should we rely on praying only?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Native]

Can we get a vaccine from those ancient myths, or should we rely on praying only?
Ciao

We´re deriving from the OP here, but OK for a moment:

But yes we can. We can once again get use to the natural contact with our natural surroundings and thus get the natural *vaccination* of natural bacteria and vira and in this way optimize our immune system - all instead of the artifificial way of vaccines which frequently needs changing forms and always are a step behind the development of bacteria and vira. A system which mostly support the medical industry production and doctors who write recepts.

 

[Native]

Subject: Bird Brains versus Newtonian Speculations.
Subtitle: Occult agensies or Natural Forces of Pressures*?

I better start with my accept of "Newtonian celestial calculations" - then I can go on rejecting the causes and effects in a *Newtonian Gravity*

Gravity Assist “Explanation”.
Gravity assist - Wikipedia

“To increase speed, the spacecraft flies with the movement of the planet, acquiring some of the planet's orbital energy in the process; to decrease speed, the spacecraft flies against the movement of the planet to transfer some of its own orbital energy to the planet”.
---------
What? “A spacecraft and a planet transferring its energies to each other” at distancies? Seriously? By what means? By teleportation?

The way of gaining knowledge via Natural Philosophy

Some migration bird brains apparently knows instinctively more of *gravitational causes and effects* than some ancient and modern gravitational scientist, when using the atmospheric particle density to gain lift and to acquire *gravitational sling shot effects* when flying in a v-shaped formation.

In this way birds of course don´t "transfer energy to other birds" as the speculated nonsense above with "a spacecraft and a planet tranferring energies to another".

It´s simply a question of using the natural effects of a local direct pressure and take advantage of the lesser pressure behind a moving object in the Earth´s atmosphere and logically the same case in space where planets and spacecrafts moves.

This is the kind of *logics* and knowledge of *causes and effects* you can get when applying the noble and royal art of Natural Philosophy and thus get rid of your scientifically disconnected speculations.

Newton failed in his philosophical natural thinking and missed the natural deductional facts before launching his strange *Apple ideas* - which later on became scientific consensus basics in all standing theories about everything in the observable Universe.

All this because of Newtons *occult agency power* and the non sensical idea of *planets and objects transferring energies to another at distances*.

Conclusion accordingly to this Op subject: Instinctive bird brains (and Natural Philosophers ) are wiser than some scientists when it comes to *logics* and *causes and effects*.