Did Newton Get It All Wrong?
Newton’s laws were the foundation of modern physics but because of the beliefs accepted at the time, they are wrong
His first law states that the motion of an object will not change unless a force acts upon it.
Motion is caused by energy so the motion of an object is the result of energy applied to it.
Energy creates velocity, it is not velocity that makes energy, so as energy declines motion declines.
Energy decreases with distance from its source, according to Keppler’s law, C = dv^2, so the velocity of an object will decrease as it moves away from a source of energy and increase as it moves towards a source.
Energy flows from a higher level to a lower level and objects will absorb or lose energy as the energy around them changes. As an object moves into a weaker energy field it will radiate more energy and this loss of energy will result in lower velocity.
When an object moves into a stronger energy field it will absorb more energy producing greater velocity.
Meteors do not “burn” up in the upper atmosphere due to friction from scarce gas molecules or because of chemical reactions with oxygen but because they are equalizing energy with the weaker energy field radiated from the Earth.
Losing energy by radiation is a slow process limited by the surface area so the energy is shed as kinetic energy of surface molecules producing the “burning”.
Newton did not recognize that energy was a separate component of the universe and so made it a function of the known component, matter, even though there is no matter in Keppler’s law on which his theory is based.
Energy is attracted to matter (protons) producing motion while matter (electrons) resists energy (inertia) and radiates energy.
The interaction of the opposite components and the forces they produce create the universe. The stronger energy force separates electrons from protons (neutrons) creating the nucleus of an atom by compression (stronger nuclear force) of protons on the surface.
The electric force of matter, between electrons and protons (weak nuclear force) in the nucleus resists energy and the repelling of energy of those negative electrons causes the atom to radiate or lose energy.
The opposite behavior of the two subatomic forces is apparent in their behavior. When opposite poles of magnets come together they create a larger magnet with greater radiated energy attractive force.
When opposite electric charges come together the electric fields shrink making a weaker radiated electric force.
If similar magnetic poles are forced together the magnetic field shrink making a weaker radiated attractive force while when similar charges are forced together the strength of the radiated electric field increases.
There is no force of gravity pulling the planets towards the sun. They are in equilibrium with the suns radiated energy field and neither gain or loses energy. As a planet travels in an elliptical orbit it will radiate or absorb energy as the distance changes and its velocity will change, increasing and decreasing, without the addition or subtraction of energy from another source.
While the energy decreases as a function of distance the strength or amplitude of an energy field changes as the square of the distance from the source. As energy spreads over a larger area the strength decreases as a function of area which is described in Keppler’s law that an orbiting object will circumscribe equal areas in equal time units despite its changing velocity.
Energy is an indestructible component of an object so the energy field radiated by an object and its velocity will continue to travel and decrease with distance until it is blocked by the equal strength of an energy field coming from another source.
Energy does not flow from lower to higher. This means objects to not travel in a straight line but in an arc and when the object enters a different energy field, its path will change as it equalizes with that energy field (refraction).
Energy only flows to lower energy levels so the boundary and shape of an object is defined the energy fields of surrounding objects that shape its energy field.
When the attractive force of energy reaches the equilibrium point with the attractive energy force coming from another object, the strength of that force has decreased as the square of the distance from the source, so the binding strength between the attractive forces is F=E1/d1 + E2/d2, not F=E1E2/d^2.
The distance of the energy force decreases with distance so the force from a larger source to the equilibrium point, where the strengths are equal, will be greater than the distance from the weaker energy source.
Distance is not measured from the center of objects but from the surface where the force begins to decline as there is no more energy coming from additional matter adding to the radiated energy, not from the centers of the objects radiating the forces.
Light is a change in the amplitude of an energy field and its velocity will also change as the energy field in which it travels changes. It is never constant because energy is motion and motion means there is variation of the energy field.
Being a form of energy it will also never disappear until it is absorbed by matter and adds to that matter’s energy field.
The speed of light is determined by the strength of the energy field in which the disturbance propagates. The speed of light will decrease as it travels away from a source with the slowing creating the red shift in a spectrum emitted from an atom, as wavelengths become longer.
When the light passes an equilibrium point between objects and enters a different energy field radiated from another object, its speed will increase as the strength of that field increase, causing a blue shift in the spectrum emitted from an atom as the wavelength decreases.
The brightness, strength, or amplitude of the wave is determined by the field and cannot be used to determine the distance the light has traveled, only the distance it has traveled in a declining or increasing field.
As the speed of light changes, traveling through fields from different sources, it will cause a blurring of the spectral lines emitted by atoms as they undergo both red and blue shifts. The amount of shift depends on how far the disturbance travels in each type of field.
It is the amount of blurring that determines the distance the light has traveled, not the type of shift.
The amount of blurring does not indicate the distance to the source of the light. The changing of the speed of light will mean its path is not in a straight line but arcs. Since it will continue to travel it will take a distorted circular path through the universe until that rare occasion when it is absorbed by matter.
The amount of light emitted from the sun that encounters matter in the solar system is minute, with most of it taking a path through the universe. If this light, with its circular path, ever encounters the tiny speck of matter called Earth it will provide an image of the sun from when the light was emitted. It is not looking into the past but at the past.
When we look through a telescope we see multiple images coming from the same source at different times in its life cycle. This is why the universe seems to get more cluttered with matter as the telescopes become more powerful, the size of the universe is not changing. Matter in the universe is a rare commodity.
Objects radiate the attractive force of energy in all directions just as a single light bulb radiates light in all directions. The energy radiated from other sources can change this radiated energy into directional energy where instead of the strength declining as the square of the distance it becomes more linear, just as when a reflector converts the spreading light from a light bulb into a flashlight or spotlight where the strength or brightness are concentrated in one direction.
The radiated force from the moon and Earth combine to produce a more linear flow of energy. This increase in energy causes the high tide on the side of the Earth opposite the moon.
The water equalizes with the higher energy level, increasing its speed and causing a bulge just as the increase in speed around the equator cause a bulge. If the attractive force was a function of mass, all the mass from the Earth and moon would be pulling the water in the opposite direction, creating a depression.
The interaction of energy from different sources means everything is connected and makes it difficult to determine the properties from a single source. What happens to one source effects all.
Magnetism is where the structure of an object converts part of the radiated attractive force into a directional force and offers a means of isolating the behavior of energy from a single source.
A problem is that when a magnet approaches another object with similar composition, its direction magnetic force causes a conversion of the some of the radiated energy force from the object into a direction force.
This means that you are measuring the force from two objects, the permanent magnet and the induced magnet from the object containing iron. As the permanent magnet gets closer to the object the strength of the induced magnet increases, which in turn shifts the equilibrium point towards the permanent magnet.
The changing of two variables, strength and distance, let to the belief that the strength of a magnet decreases as the approximate cube of distance and the force between the magnets was F=M1M2/d^2.
The energy force decreases linearly, Keppler’s law, so the correct formula is F=M1/d1 + M2/d2 where the distances are measured from the surface of the magnet to the equilibrium point between them.
A way to eliminate the problem of changing distance and magnetic strength is to create a model of a permanent magnet, eliminate induces magnetism, and see how its properties change as it structure changes.
A permanent magnet contains structures that produce a direction attractive force and structures that radiate a general attractive force.
The model is made from two permanent magnets, threaded onto a non-magnetic all thread rod. The two permanent magnets are separated by a distance with a non magnetized steel washer threaded onto the rod between them, representing the matter radiating a non directional force.
The model is affixed over a scale with a weighted (aluminum block) permanent magnet attached. Any change in magnetic force from the model will be recorded as a change in weight by the scale but because of the attached permanent magnet there will not be a variable induced magnetic field.
Initially the steel washer is flush to the bottom surface of the upper permanent magnet and it is then moved down the rod, one rotation at a time.
At first this changing distance produces no change in the magnetic force between the model and the permanent magnet on the scale, but when the washer reaches the midpoint between the two permanent magnets the lifting power of the model begins to increase.
With further lowering the lifting force increases in an exponential fashion.
The explanation for this behavior is that while the washer is within the magnetic force of the top magnet, its induced magnetic strength decreases linearly as distance from the permanent magnet source increases.
Once it enters the magnetic field of the bottom magnet its induced magnetic strength increases as the distance to the bottom magnet decreases producing an increase in attraction between the permanent magnet on the scale and the model.
This experiment shows that the attractive force decrease linearly while the strength of the force decreases as the square of the distance just as Keppler’s laws predict.
The attractive forces of energy are not a product of the mass but of the energy associated with mass.
Please note: PSI does not necessarily endorse the views of each and every article we publish. Our intention is to encourage open, honest, scientific debate.
Header image: The New Yorker
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
In my copy of The Principia, as translated by Andrew Motte Newton’s Law I begins: “Every body perseveres In its state of rest, …” Why didn’t you correctly quote what he wrote??? It’s written in black and white.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Addendum:
Newton’s Law of Gravity Theory proposes that there is an attractive force between objects that is produced by matter. The strength of this force is the product of the object’s masses which declines as the square of the distance between the objects. It is this force that causes satellites to travel in an elliptical orbit around other objects.
At the apogee of the elliptical orbit the distance between the satellite and object begins to decline and the satellites speed begins to increase. At the perigee of the orbit the distance between the satellite and object begins to increase and its speed decreases.
The evidence shows that the force is greatest where the theory predicts it would be weakest and weakest where it is suppose to be strongest.
Objects are formed from both matter and energy and the contradiction posed by the elliptical orbit is because the attractive force between objects is not from matter but the energy associated with the object. The matter of the object is radiating a negative electric field the producers a repelling force between objects. The two forces act in similar fashions by declining linearly with distance and their strengths declining as a function of the distance squared but they act in opposite ways. As the distance between the objects declines the internal attractive force of energy decreases as it becomes an increasing radiated attractive force. With the rlectric force of matter the decrease in distance between the objects cause the repelling force to increase ion strength.
The evidence of the elliptical orbit is a result of the changing of the strengths of the two forces where the force of energy is stronger at the apogee while the force of matter is stronger at the perigee.
Wisenox discovered that if the strength of the energy force is stronger than the matter force by a factor of psi (1.61…) that in a three dimensional universe, with spherical shaped objects, the strength of the two forces will be equal at pi (3.1421…). This means at equilibrium of forces between the objects the elliptical path a satellite travels will be a circle.
The Law of entropy is false. Objects are not moving in a random manner but equalizing the forces between objects.
(Rescued comment held in moderation because you spelled your name Heerb) SUNMOD
Reply
Wilson Sy
| #
Your third paragraph is wrong. At the apogee (further point from the sun), the gravitational force and acceleration of the planet is the weakest. As the planet moves from the apogee, it gets closer to the sun, both gravitational force and acceleration increases. Gravitational force, acceleration and velocity are minimum at the apogee. Conversely, gravitational force, acceleration and velocity are maximum at the perigee (closest point to the sun). Theory and observation are consistent – basic mathematics and physics.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Wilson,
As I was pointing out, if gravity is weakest at the apogee why do satellites start to move towards the source of gravity and why, where the gravity is strongest, do they move away from the source of the force?
Herb
Reply
Wilson Sy
| #
Inertia or momentum as the planet’s velocity is nearly orthogonal (exactly if in circular motion) to gravitational force. One dimensional thinking is inadequate.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Wilson,
What you are saying is that the force of gravity on a satellite can give it enough energy (speed) to overcome that same force of gravity and move into a higher orbit. Can’t happen.
Ken Hughes
| #
Most of the points made in this “article” are so fundamentally wrong, so at variance with accepted and proven science, that they are simply not worthy of comment.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Ken,
When you wrote “Most of the points made in this “article” are so fundamentally wrong, so at variance with accepted and proven science, … “, you disclosed your ignorance of what natural science actually is.
Newton, in The Principlia as translated to English by Motte, concluded his book with this statement “But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. Thus it was that the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive force of bodies, and the laws motion and of graviton, were discovered. And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies and our sea.”
Have a good day
Reply
lloyd
| #
Crumudgeon much?
Reply
Wilson Sy
| #
Agree Ken. You don’t criticize existing physics, until you understand it. For example, kinetic energy is independent of its original source, which may not be tethered to gravity, e.g. from a supernova.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Wilson,
You begin by acknowledging Galileo showing that gravity is independent of mass and now bring in inertia. You acknowledge Kepler’s law that energy of orbiting objects is strictly a function of distance and then speak of initial energy. An orbiting object will lose energy until it equalizes with the gravitational field. It cannot lose more and have less energy. At the apogee its energy is equalized. How does it then gain energy from the gravitational field? At the perigee it has gained energy from gravity to equalize with the gravitational field. How then does it lose energy to the gravitational field?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi -PSI Readers’
A WARNING!!!
On the copyright page I read and NOW REPORT EVERYTHING WHICH I READ!!!
Published 1995 by Prometheus Books
59 John Glenn Drive, Amherst, New York 14228-2197)
716-691-0133 FAX: 716-691-0137
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Newton, Issac, Sir, 1642-1727.
[Principia, English]
The Principia / Issac Newton ; translated by Andrew Motte.
p. cm. (Great minds series)
Originally published: Newton’s Principia. 1st American ed. carefully rev. and corr., with a life of the author by N.W. Chittenden. . . . New York. : D. Adee, 1848.
Includes index.
ISBN 0-87975-980-1 (pbk. : acid-free)
I. Newton, Issac, Sir, 1642-1727. Principia. I. Title. II Series. QA803.N413 1995
531–dc20. 95-6733
CIP
Printed in the United States Of America on acid-free paper
Did you a reader catch “carefully rev. and core.”??? In other words: I have no idea what Newton actually wrote befor he died.
Have a good day
Reply
Wilson Sy
| #
Newton did not make things up to explain motion, like this article. Principia Mathematica was the unification by Newton, of centuries of empirical facts presented as mathematical theorems. Assumptions or propositions of Principia were observations of Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo, whom Einstein called “the father of modern science”, not Newton.
Newton did not invent the laws of motion or gravity; it was Galileo who had experimentally discovered most of it. He famously overturned Aristotelian physics in the Tower of Pisa experiment, which proved that motion under gravity was independent of mass. Newton’s achievement was putting centuries of known facts and theories together in a formal mathematical structure, which explains how Galilean gravity can also explain Kepler’s laws of planetary motion.
Newton unified of physics and astronomy and saw further than others by “standing on the shoulder of giants”, a phrase he used and was the title of a compendium published by Stephen Hawking, of the black hole fame.
Reply
jerry Krause
| #
Hi Wilson and Herb,
The word you both are dancing around, but NOT writing, is INERTIA. And Einstein assumed the speed of light was constant and FINITE. Hence, nothing is instantaneous.
Merry CHRISTmas and have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Wilson and Herb and PSI Readers,
Maybe a better word than inertia, which more might understand, is the common word–CONTINUOUS.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
Inertia is matter’s resistance to energy. The matter with energy will radiate energy. As energy decreases with distance form its source matter will radiate more energy losing more than it is gaining. Energy equalizes.
The elliptical orbits of satellites results from the matter losing energy. Gravity cannot add enough energy to a satellite to allow the satellite to overcome the same gravity to cause it to move into a higher orbit and form an ellipse.
Light is a form of energy (v^2), It cannot have a constant velocity if energy decreases with distance from its source..
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Matter and Light–Universe
Matter–atoms. Atoms–nucleus and electrons. Nucleus–protons and neutrons.
Light–photons
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You seem to know everything. So do you know with what chemical GRAPES need to be treated to make the grapes HEALTHY RASINS?
Have a good day
Reply
S.C.
| #
Hi Herb,
The distance from A to B is obviously the same as B to A.
‘F=E1/d1 + E2/d2,’ d2 is a typo, and should be ‘F = E1+E2/d’ correct?
Finding Fg = (m1m2/r^)G, and the corresponding values for E1& E2 are on my to do list.
Merry Christmas!
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi S.C.
The size of an object is not determined bits matter but by the fields I radiates. Those fields decrease with distance and end when they meet a field of equal strength so the distance from an object to another objects is from the object to the equilibrium point of their forces, not from the center of their masses (There is no distance between them.). So the distance from A to be depends on the strength of the forces of A while the distance from B to A depends the strength of B’s forces. It is the total distance that remains the same You re adding fractions with different denominators to determine the total strength of the two forces.
If A gains energy the equilibrium point between it and B will shift towards B causing the size of B to decrease as the size of. A increases.
This is why the strength of a magnet appears to decrease as the approximate cube of distance. Both the strength of the induced magnet in the iron used to measure the force increases and the size of magnetic field coming from the magnet decreases by more than the distance the magnet moves (2 variables).
Merry Christmas,
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and PSI Readers’
This link (https://principia-scientific.com/ancestors-tracing-history-scientific-method/) is history. Very important ancient HISTORY!
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
Jerry, could I have your thoughts on Newton’s interests in religion and alchemy please?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
Your request has nothing to with Newton’s and others’ observation of the two rare comets they DID observe with good precision. You and other PSI readers ,who make no comments about their SCIENTIFICALLY IMPORTANT observations,
prove to the CREATOR GOD that they lie they have any interest in the UNIVERSE HE CREATED.
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
I asked you a civil question because it has connections to your chosen path in life. I wondered whether it affected your view of him.
I asked about a related subject to the man. Entirely relevant. I don’t care about comets.
No matter, it’s the usual parade I guess.
“You and other PSI readers ,who make no comments about their SCIENTIFICALLY IMPORTANT observations”
Really? Alchemy is claimed to be the fore-runner of chemistry in some quarters. That sounds scientific to me, and he did address the subjects extensively whether you believe it or not.
“In 1936, the world of Isaac Newton scholarship received a rude shock. In that year the venerable auction house of Sotheby’s released a catalogue describing three hundred twenty-nine lots of Newton’s manuscripts, mostly in his own handwriting, of which over a third were filled with content that was undeniably alchemical.”
https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton/project/about.do
There are many more examples should you wish to know the truth, and I’ll take those over your rant.
BTW, you cannot prove God exists. Where’s the scientifics in that?
Pointless, again. Forget it.
Reply
Howdy
| #
I went somewhat on a tangent regarding paragraph 2. I will correct.
My original comment still applies though.
“You and other PSI readers ,who make no comments about their SCIENTIFICALLY IMPORTANT observations”
Yet, you’ve commented on my scientific observations in the past. I know, you make mistakes due to bad memory…
Reply
Howdy
| #
For anyone interested,,,
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-strange-tale-of-newtons-papers
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
At your link I read the question: “Was the founder of classical physics an alchemist?” The answer is certainly he was and most members of the Royal Society were. One can read that one of their experimental pursuits was to invent a furnace that produced a greater temperature. For they believed the Wise Men of that era who claimed the four elements were earth, air, water, and fire. And because they were failing to make gold from dense metals like lead, they concluded there furnaces (fire) maybe were not hot enough. And these alchemists finally designed a furnace which was capable of melting sand. And guess what this melted sand created. Glass is the answer. And we know today that glass has a PRACTICAL value that is equal to that of Gold as an electoral contact that does not corrode.
I am not sure where those who claimed to just discover that Newton was an alchemist. For there is historical evidence that Newton had a ‘thin skin’ and didn’t like the controversy that still remained about CHEMISTRY when Newton wrote THE PRINCIPLIA
I have no idea where the people who only discovered in 1938, that Newton had been an alchemist, had been living.
Have a good day
Reply
DouweH
| #
When all said and done it proves there ain’t no gravity – the Earth sucks !!
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
Someone, somewhere has questioned what Newton’s beliefs about a CREATOR GOD were. This person, by asking the question discloses (is evidence) that this person has not read THE PRINCIPLIA to its end. For within a couple of pages form its end he wrote a near two page ;paragraph about his UNDERSTOOD necessity of a CREATOR GOD and HIS NECESSARY ATTRIBUTES.
For this and for Newton’s SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING I urge everyone to read Book III of THE PRINCIPLIA.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Who, in general were the men who formed the “Royal Society”? According to what I read they were not ROYALTY; instead they were ordinarily men with the common interest of DISCUSSING their OBSERVATIONS about the WORLD in which the lived. Which is my objective in writing this comment. However, the lack of comments about my comments is evidence that other readers of PSI articles and other readers’ comments are not interested in what I read and attempt to discuss. Could you, who comment about what others write, explain what is wrong with what I write.
Have a good day and a good New Year
Reply
Howdy
| #
“Founded in 1660, it received a royal charter from Charles in 1662 and he and his brother James, Duke of York were elected Fellows in 1665. Charles took a keen interest in scientific work, directing research and conducting experiments himself. These books, the work of Royal Society Fellows, show the range of scientific discovery being made at the time and celebrate the significance of Charles’s patronage.”
https://www.rct.uk/collection/exhibitions/charles-ii-art-power/the-queens-gallery-palace-of-holyroodhouse/the-royal-society
Or
https://royalsociety.org/blog/2020/02/dissecting-a-king/
Jerry, it’s not your writings so much, but your treatment of people without prior reason or cause. You allready know that from old.
To put it bluntly, you’re a bit ‘Jekyll’.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
This is what I read: “The Royal Society is the United Kingdom’s national academy of sciences and the oldest scientific academy in the world that still exists. It was founded in 1660 by Robert Boyle, Christopher Wren, William Petty, and John Evelyn.” (AI). This is the history about which I read in ‘science books’. From your history it the ‘nobility’ got involved after these ordinary men first started meeting and discussing their current SCHOLARLY interests and, at that general time, one of their PRIME interests was the PRACTICAL PROBLEM OF how to design a furnace which produced a GREATER HEAT (fire, temperature).
Have a nobody day
Reply
Howdy
| #
I couldn’t care less how it started, or by whom. You showed an interest in it’s beginnings and I responded, end of.
The furnace is of no consequence.
“Have a nobody day”
As a ‘nobody’ in my own admission, I will, and your words show just one of the reasons people shun you.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” From the ‘creator god’ you mention quite often.
I reckon you could be a Gemini, or strong pulling in that direction. By now, that should not even figure in your reactions…
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
“I couldn’t care less how it started, or by whom. You showed an interest in its beginnings and I responded, end of.” Do I understand correctly that you don’t care what others, including me, are interested in discussing. So did you even make a comment about my comment?
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
Whether I care about what other people discuss is neither here nor there. Don’t make it important when it’s not.
I would have discussed it but for your behaviour Jerry. Don’t you understand what I’m saying? You caused it to go nowhere, same as the Newton thread when I opened the opportunity to discuss Newton’s hidden side interests, but you threw back in my face, later making an accusation about me, but not mentioning me by name.
You, every time because you, judge it not real science if it doesn’t fit your ideals of the people you look up to, even when it is actually about the core of the person.
Finished.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy,
“when I opened the opportunity to discuss Newton’s hidden side interests,” I commented specifically about the historical fact that Newton was well known in his time that he was an ‘alchemist” whose primarily objective was to change lead into gold as the philosophers (the wiseones) claimed could be done if the four elements of matter (earth, water, air, fire) which the same philosophers claimed where the fundamental elements of all OTHER NATURAL MATTER such as GOLD.
I comment about what you write so others, not familiar with this HISTORY, will not be confused by your comments. For another historical fact is some people have claimed the alchemists were a secretive society. But if one goes to art galleries which feature the paintings of the old masters of their art, one will find that the laboratories of the alchemists was a favorite focus of these ART MASTERS. Hence, this paintings are EVIDENCE that the ALCHEMISTS did not try to hide what they were doing. Just as Newton did not try to hide the fact that he was an alchemist, THE PRINCIPIA is a mathematical physics essay and ALCHEMISTRY was not mathematical beyond measuring mass and volume (density).
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
For anybody that wants to.
https://youtu.be/EjZB81jCGj4
Reply