Exposition and Critique of Sir Isaac Newton

newtonpic

The life of Sir Isaac Newton is a confusing but glorious account of the development of my people, the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant peoples. As a child, Newton was an awkward spectacle, being born prematurely on a cold Christmas day in Lincolnshire England, having suffered the death of his father before his birth and the abandonment of his mother. Surprisingly, Newton did not do well in school but due to a bully, Newton motivated himself to become the top ranked student in order to position himself with an ability to get revenge on his persecutor. Newton displayed great animosity towards his mother and after a failed attempt to make a farmer of Newton, his mother sent him back to school to further his education. Newton was an industrious young man applying himself to the famous work, The Mysteries of Nature and Art by John Bate, developing his interest in applied science and invention.

natureart

Newton ended up at Trinity College, Cambridge, again where he did not excel, but privately he began his illustrious academic career.  The primary works that laid the foundations for his brilliant career were, John Wallis’ The Arithmetic of Infinitesimals,

wallis

and Descartes’ Geometria  by which Newton developed his Calculus,

descartesgeo

The Optical Lectures of Isaac Barrow, laid the foundation for Newton’s invention of the first reflecting telescope in 1672.

barrowlec

The Brilliant Anglican Robert Boyle was also a huge influence on Newton with his famous works The Sceptical Chymst, and The Origin of Forms and Qualities.[1] These works created what is now known as modern Chemistry and mark the chronology of the change from the era of Alchemy to the era of Modern Chemistry. The point at issue was his rejection of a Universal Spirit of Neoplatonism and d’Espagnet and his affirmation of a Universal Matter. This brings me to argument number 60.

  1. Boyle maintained that the primordial substance from which all things are derived is water as described in the Bible. Boyle states in The First Part of his The Sceptical Chymst,

“Propos. I. It seems not absurd to conceive that at the first Production of mixt Bodies, the Universal Matter whereof they among other Parts of the Universe consisted, was actually divided into little Particles of several sizes and shapes variously mov’d.

This (sayes Carneades) I suppose you will easily enough allow. For besides that which happens in the Generation, Corruption, Nutrition, and wasting of Bodies, that which we discover partly by our Microscopes of the extream littlenesse of even the scarce sensible parts of Concretes; and partly by the Chymical Resolutions of mixt Bodies, and by divers other Operations of Spagyrical Fires upon them, seems sufficiently to manifest their consisting of parts very minute and of differing Figures. And that there does also intervene a various local Motion of such small Bodies, will scarce be denied; whether we chuse to grant the Origine of Concretions assign’d by Epicurus, or that related by Moses. For the first, as you well know, supposes not only all(38) mixt Bodies, but all others to be produc’d by the various and casual occursions of Atomes, moving themselves to and fro by an internal Principle in the Immense or rather Infinite Vacuum. And as for the inspir’d Historian, He, informing us that the great and Wise Author of Things did not immediately create Plants, Beasts, Birds, &c. but produc’d them out of those portions of the pre-existent, though created, Matter, that he calls Water and Earth, allows us to conceive, that the constituent Particles whereof these new Concretes were to consist, were variously moved in order to their being connected into the Bodies they were, by their various Coalitions and Textures, to compose.”[2]

boyle1

boyle2

And again Boyle states,

“It seems also by what is delivered in Strabo out of another Author, concerning the Indians, That they likewise held that all things had differing Beginnings, but that of which the World was made, was Water. And the like Opinion has been by some of the Antients ascrib’d to the Phœnicians, from whom Thales himself is conceiv’d to have borrow’d it; as probably the Greeks did much of their Theologie, and, as I am apt to think, of their Philosophy too; since the Devising of the Atomical Hypothesis commonly ascrib’d to Lucippus and his Disciple Democritus, is by Learned Men attributed to one Moschus a Phœnician. And possibly the Opinion is yet antienter than so; For ’tis known that the Phœnicians borrow’d most of their Learning from the Hebrews. And among those that acknowledge the Books of Moses, many have been inclin’d to think Water to have been the Primitive and Universal Matter, by perusing the Beginning of Genesis, where the Waters seem to be mention’d as the Material Cause, not only of Sublunary Compounded Bodies, but of all those that make up the Universe; whose Component Parts did orderly, as it were, emerge out of that vast Abysse, by the Operation of the Spirit of God, who is said to have been moving Himself as hatching Females do (as the Original םרחפת, Meracephet is said to Import, and as it seems to signifie in one of the two other places, wherein alone I have met with it in the Hebrew Bible) upon the Face of the Waters; which being, as may be suppos’d, Divinely Impregnated with the seeds of all things, were by that productive Incubation qualify’d to produce them.”[3]

This brilliant observation can be seen in the first chapter of Genesis:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters… 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

  1. Thus, we see from scripture that the land came from the waters, the waters being the primordial substance. This accords perfectly with the Flat Earth model and completely contrary to the globe earth model. In the Flat Earth model, water is the foundation and structure, with the oceans being held in by the ice ring and the earth coming up from the water.

flatearth1

flat_earth

However, the globe model is completely foreign to the Scripture with its foundations being a molten glowing core.

moltencore

Boyle’s observations are brilliant and he is to be commended as a worthy mentor to our illustrious scholar Newton. Boyle’s primary contribution, being a Biblical monotheist, was his mechanistic construction of matter as opposed to the mystic alchemic view which methinks Newton never truly liberated himself from. And thus we now move to his obsession with Alchemy.

It may shock the reader to know that most of Newton’s time was actually not taken up with his development of modern Science, for he was no Secularist, but his obsession with Biblical Prophecy and Alchemy.

  1. Newton’s view of Gravity came from Pantheism and the Occult and has no basis in physical reality or in propositional logic.As for Newton’s Alchemy his work in this field has been abundantly documented on The Newton Project, “Introducing Newton’s Alchemical Papers”.[4] One of the most well-known alchemical papers is his translation of the Emerald Tablet (Keynes MS. 28, King’s College Library, Cambridge University).[5]

As I have demonstrated in a previous section, the Egyptians did not teach that the Sun was the center of a Heliocentric Solar System. That system was developed by the Greeks, primarily, Aristarchus. Not only so, to the contrary of many conspiracy advocates on the Internet, Sir Isaac Newton was not a member of any occult or Freemasonic Society. There is no evidence for it whatsoever. The best evidence is from the Pseudo-Historical Fraud of the authors of Holy Blood Holy Grail.  In Mackey’s Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, Mackey does not even given Sir Isaac Newton an article.

mackeytitle

newtonmackey

The historical shift from Alchemy to Chemistry with Newton’s mentor Robert Boyle had just begun.  In order to do Science at this time you had to dabble in Alchemy. Alchemy, unfortunately, was Chemistry at this time.

The Alchemy that Newton dabbled in was sourced in the Hermetic tradition of the 2nd – 3rd Century A.D. Corpus Hermeticum and the Neoplatonic tradition which followed, revived in the West in the 15th Century Renaissance period, brought into Science by Paracelsus[6] and Championed by Jean D’Espagnet’s Enchyridion. As I stated in my book Conquering the Verbal Sorcery of Trinitarianism, pg. 91,

“Albert McIlhenny, in his great work, This is the Sun? Zeitgesit and Religions Volume I: Comparative Religion (2011) takes up that issue.[7] The issue at hand is the nature of a body of literature known as Corpus Hermeticum (CH). This was a body of North African Hellenistic Gnosticism later developed into Neoplatonism.

Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499), Italian Renaissance Philosopher, completed his translation of CH in 1463. He gave a spiritual genealogy of Moses and Plato among others claiming that they all were influenced by Hermes. The point of CH is to prove that Egypt is the source of all mysteries. The Jesuit, Athanasius Kircher, was the most influential in interpreting hieroglyphs. He was a vigorous supporter of the CH myth. It was refuted after the discovery of the Rosetta Stone (196 B.C.-Discovered in 1799 by a French expedition to Egypt) and Isaac Casaubon’s work. As Albert McIlhenny points out,

“The erroneous belief Egyptian hieroglyphs were not a normal script but a symbolic language on divine things reinforced Egypt’s reputation as the source of ancient mysteries. With no one able to accurately decipher the script, the meaning of the texts was left open to speculation. The deciphering of the Rosetta Stone overthrew this distortion among scholars but it continues in the popular works of occultists, conspiracy theorists, and promoters of ‘alternative history.’ ”[8]

Isaac Casaubon showed how the style and usage of CH was indicative of late antiquity and he dated CH after the time of the New Testament. That is to say, CH was a fraud.  Despite having been defended by the Cambridge Platonists, CH lost the respect of the Scholarly world. Hermann Conring denied that Hermes Trismegitus even existed! ”

Jean D’Espagnet states his Pantheistic theory of origins in his Enchyridion (1651) page 2-3,

“[B]efore the creation of the Universe he[God] was a book rowld up in himself giving light onely to himself; but, as it were, travailing with the birth of the world, he unfolded himself…and so brought forth the Idaeal-world, as it were in the transcript of that divine Original, into an actual and material world…”[9]

And again on page 5,

“The ‘Universal Spirit,’ or the ‘Soul of the World,’ takes second place only to God and is centered in the sun.”[10]

And again on page 19,

“It was not an improbable assertion of some of the Philosophers, That the soul of the World was in the Sun, and the Sun in the Centre of the whole.”[11]

And again on page 135,

“And ‘through the Universal Regions of the Air,’ d’Espagnet asserted, the Spirit of the Universe ‘doth extend it self perpetually…pouring out all gifts for generation and life, through all the bodies of the Universe.”[12]

The Newton Project has documented in its webpage “Books in Newton’s Library” that d’Espagnet’s work was found in Newton’s Library.[13]

There is no doubt that Newton’s view of Gravity flowed from this Pantheistic view of God and nature.

The influence of d’Espagnet’s “Universal Spirit” may be found in the Letter from Newton to Henry Oldenburg, dated 25 January 1675/6,

“Where I say that the frame of nature may be nothing but Æther condensed by a fermental principle, instead of those words write that it may be nothing but various contextures of some certain æthereal spirits or vapours condensed as it were by precipitation, much after the manner that vapors are condensed into water or exhalations into grosser substances, though not so easily condensible; & after condensation wrought into various forms, at first by the immediate hand of the Creator, & ever since by the power of nature, who by virtue of the command Increas & multiply  {became} a complete imitator of the copies set her by the Protoplast. Thus perhaps may all things be originated from æther, &c.”[14]

And from his Principia,

“These Propositions naturally lead us to the analogy there is between centripetal forces, and the central bodies to which those forces used to be directed ; for it is reasonable to suppose that forces which are directed to bodies should depend upon the nature and quantity of those bodies, as we see they do in magnetical experiments. And when such cases occur, we are to compute the attractions of the bodies by assigning to each of their particles its proper force, and then collecting the sum of them all. I here use the word attraction in general for any endeavour, of what kind soever, made by bodies to approach to each other; whether that endeavour arise from the action of the bodies themselves, as tending mutually to or agitating each other by spirits emitted; or whether it arises from the action of the aether or of the air, or of any medium whatsoever whether corporeal or incorporeal, any how impelling bodies placed therein towards each other.”[15]

And again,

“And now we might add something concerning a certain most subtle Spirit which pervades and lies hid in all gross bodies ; by the force and action of which Spirit the particles of bodies mutually attract one another at near distances, and cohere, if contiguous ; and electric bodies operate to greater distances, as well repelling as attracting the neighbouring corpuscles ; and light is emitted, reflected, refracted, inflected, and heats bodies; and all sensation is excited, and the members of animal bodies move at the command of the will, namely, by the vibrations of this Spirit, mutually propagated along the solid filaments of the nerves, from the outward organs of sense to the brain, and from the brain into the muscles. But these are things that cannot be explained in few words, nor are we furnished with that sufficiency of experiments which is required to an accurate determination and demonstration of the laws by which this electric and elastic Spirit operates.”[16]

Thus Dobbs admits,

“When the Principia was published, Newton’s opponents were quick to cry out that Newton’s forces were occult qualities. Newton claimed they were derived from phenomena and so were not really occult, even though their causes were not yet known, but in a very real sense his critics were right: Newton’s forces were very much like the hidden sympathies and antipathies found in much of the occult literature of the Renaissance period.”[17]

Dear reader, please do not be deceived by Heliocentrists when they tell you that the cause of Gravity is not known. That is just sophistry. Saying the causes of Gravity are unknown is no different than saying it is occult. It is the same meaning.

To hammer the point home concerning the Pantheistic/Neoplatonic/Alchemical view of God and nature at this time and arguably still today, we read from The Secret Teachings of All Ages by Manly P. Hall, Part one, pg. 154,

“Alchemy teaches that God is in everything; that He is One Universal Spirit, manifesting through an infinity of forms. God, therefore, is the spiritual seed planted in the dark earth (the material universe). By arc it is possible so to grow and expand this seed that the entire universe of substance is tinctured thereby and becomes like unto the seed–pure gold. In the spiritual nature of man this is termed regeneration; in the material body of the elements it is called transmutation.”[18]

The way I see it, Newton’s view of Science and Gravity is much like the allegiance many Bible believing people have to the doctrine of the Trinity. As I have shown in my books the Trinity doctrine is ipso facto Pantheism, but the language involved is so complicated and confusing it is easy for a learned Theologian to bypass the congregation’s conscience with the right sophistry. The same is true of the difference between Neoplatonic Alchemy and Boyle’s Mechanistic Chemistry. This is why our apostle warns,

1 Tim 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee.

And again,

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Messiah.

  1. Newton’s definitions of Gravity and Centripetal Force are baseless and meaningless.

Newton states in his Principia, pg. 74-78, Scholium I, Newton’s chapter on Definitions,

“DEFINITION V.

A centripetal force is that by which bodies are drawn or impelled, or any way tend, towards a point as to a centre.

Of this sort is gravity, by which bodies tend to the centre of the earth magnetism, by which iron tends to the loadstone ; and that force, what ever it is, by which the planets are perpetually drawn aside from the rectilinear motions, which otherwise they would pursue, and made to revolve in curvilinear orbits. A stone, whirled about in a sling, endeavours to recede from the hand that turns it ; and by that endeavour, distends the sling, and that with so much the greater force, as it is revolved with the greater velocity, and as soon as ever it is let go, flies away. That force which opposes itself to this endeavour, and by which the sling perpetually draws back the stone towards the hand, and retains it in its orbit, because it is directed to the hand as the centre of the orbit, I call the centripetal force. And the same thing is to be understood of all bodies, revolved in any orbits. They all endeavour to recede from the centres of their orbits; and wore it not for the opposition of a contrary force which restrains them to, and detains them in their orbits, which I therefore call centripetal, would fly off in right lines, with an uniform motion. A projectile, if it was not for the force of gravity, would not deviate towards the earth, but would go off from it in a right line, and that with an uniform motion, if the resistance of the air was taken away. It is by its gravity that it is drawn aside perpetually from its rectilinear course, and made to deviate towards the earth, more or less, according to the force of its gravity, and the velocity of its motion. The less its gravity is, for the quantity of its matter, or the greater the velocity with which it is projected, the less will it deviate from a rectilinear course, and the farther it will go. If a leaden ball, projected from the top of a mountain by the force of gunpowder with a given velocity, and in a direction parallel to the horizon, is carried in a curve line to the distance of two miles before it falls to the ground ; the same, if the resistance of the air were taken away, with a double or decuple velocity, would fly twice or ten times as far. And by increasing the velocity, we may at pleasure increase the distance to which it might be projected, and diminish the curvature of the line, which it might describe, till at last it should fall at the distance of 10, 30, or 90 degrees, or even might go quite round the whole earth before it falls ; or lastly, so that it might never fall to the earth, but go forward into the celestial spaces, and proceed in its motion in infinitum. And after the same manner that a projectile, by the force of gravity, may be made to revolve in an orbit, and go round the whole earth, the moon also, either by the force of gravity, if it is endued with gravity, or by any other force, that impels it towards the earth, may be perpetually drawn aside towards the earth, out of the rectilinear way, which by its innate force it would pursue; and would be made to revolve in the orbit which it now describes ; nor could the moon with out some such force, be retained in its orbit. If this force was too small, it would not sufficiently turn the moon out of a rectilinear course : if it was too great, it would turn it too much, arid draw down the moon from its orbit towards the earth. It is necessary, that the force be of a just quantity, and it belongs to the mathematicians to find the force, that may serve exactly to retain a body in a given orbit, with a given velocity ; and vice versa, to determine the curvilinear way, into which a body projected from a given place, with a given velocity, may be made to deviate from its natural rectilinear way, by means of a given force.”

His definition begins in passive voice which does not describe the subject of the action but only the object acted upon. He isn’t telling us what gravity is. Second, there is no such thing as a point. Euclid states in his Elements Book I,

“Definition 1. A point is that which has no part.”

There has never been anything ever discovered in the physical reality that has no parts. This is all speculative abstraction. Third, when Newton says, “that force, what ever it is”, he is admitting he doesn’t know what gravity is. Fourth, Newton’s argument regarding the projectile is begging the question and affirming the consequent. It could be, the reason the projectile falls to the earth is because the force that impelled it is finite and the projectile is heavier than its surrounding environment.

Newton says again,

“Scholium

Hitherto I have laid down the definitions of such words as are less known, and explained the sense in which I would have them to be under stood in the following discourse. I do not define time, space, place and motion, as being well known to all…”

  1. This is simply Newton’s way of avoiding issues that are devastating to his theory. No one knows what space, time, and place are.

Newton continues,

“II. Absolute space, in its own nature, without regard to anything external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses determine by

its position to bodies ; and which is vulgarly taken for immovable space ; such is the dimension of a subterraneous, an aereal, or celestial space, determined by its position in respect of the earth. Absolute and relative space, are the same in figure and magnitude; but they do not remain always numerically the same. For if the earth, for instance, moves, a space of our air, which relatively and in respect of the earth remains always the same, will at one time be one part of the absolute space into which the air passes ; at another time it will be another part of the same, and so absolutely understood, it will be perpetually mutable.”

  1. Here Newton is simply defining space using Geometry as a way to measure space, not to define it. The problem is the measurements are baseless. There is no such thing as a point. Thus, there is no such thing as a line. Thus, there is no such thing as a dimension in physical reality.

Newton says again,

“III. Place is a part of space which a body takes up, and is according to the space, either absolute or relative.”

  1. This is circular reasoning. Brown University Professor, Dr. Mary Louise Gill refuted all attempts made to provide a theory of individuation in Aristotle. In her article: “Individuals and Individuation in Aristotle” in Unity, Identity, and Explanation in Aristotle’s Metaphysics pages 62-69,i. If we take matter to be the principle of individuation how do we individuate one unit of matter from another? Some will say, “the spatio-temporal location”. Yet this is circular. How do we individuate spatio-temporal locations? By the matter contained in that space. So the matter is individuated by the space and the space by the matter. It is a circular argument.

    ii. Some have tried to use matter and quantity as the principle of individuation. Gill replies, “this criterion will not work for identical twins, two drafts of water from the same fountain, or Max Black’s pair of spheres, which have qualitatively identical matter.”

    iii. Another attempt has made material continuity the principle of individuation. Gill speaks to this issue on page 66,

“If two statues of Socrates are made out of the same bronze at different times, the statues are distinct because the time during which the matter constitutes the two is interrupted. In the interval the bronze survives the destruction of the first statue and the generation of the second…If this is Aristotle’s answer to the puzzle about material migration, then continuity of matter is not sufficient even to account for weak individuation. Continuity of time is also required.”

iv. Some have tried to use form as the principle of individuation. Gill replies,

“But it is not very good evidence…Some defenders of the thesis will respond that the forms of Callias and Socrates differ because they are realized in different parcels of matter. But then form is not after all the principle of individuation, since the matter, rather than the form, differentiates the particulars.”

Newton states,

“IV. Absolute motion is the translation of a body from one absolute place into another ; and relative motion, the translation from one relative place into another. Thus in a ship under sail, the relative place of a body is that part of the ship which the body possesses; or that part of its cavity which the body fills, and which therefore moves together with the ship: and relative rest is the continuance of the body in the same part of the ship, or of its cavity.”

  1. I already refuted Newton’s concept of space and place. However to address his argument and one that is used often today let us suppose you are driving in your car on the highway and you see a fly flying around in your car and accelerating from behind you past your head. Now, you’re going over 60mph. How is this fly able to accelerate past my head? Is he flying over 60 mph? Is this how Newton’s theory works in reality? Does the atmosphere move with the earth in the same way? Absolutely not. In the car, the fly is in an enclosed and manipulated environment. That would require you to affirm that the earth has a firmament over it which would utterly crush the Heliocentric position. Could also refer here to Zeno’s Paradox which I explain in my book Thomas Jefferson Was Wrong.

Newton tells us why planets are Spheres on pages 528-529 of his Principia,

 “As the parts of the earth mutually attract one another, so do those of all the planets. If Jupiter and its satellites were brought together, and formed into one globe, without doubt they would continue mutually to attract one another as before. And, on the other hand, if the body of Jupiter was broke into more globes, to be sure, these would no less attract one another than they do the satellites now. From these attractions it is that the bodies of the earth and all the planets effect a spherical figure, and their parts cohere, and are not dispersed through the aether. But we have before proved that these forces arise from the universal nature of matter (p. 398), and that, therefore, the force of any whole globe is made up of the several forces of all its parts. And from thence it follows (by Cor. III, Prop. LXXIV) that the force of every particle decreases in the duplicate proportion of the distance from that particle; and (by Prop. LXXIII and LXXV) that the force of an entire globe, reckoning from the surface outwards, decreases in the duplicate, but, reckoning inwards, in the simple proportion of the distances from the centres, if the matter of the globe be uniform. And though the matter of the globe, reckoning from the centre towards the surface, is not uniform (p. 398, 399), yet the decrease in the duplicate proportion of the distance outwards would (by Prop. LXXVI) take place, provided that difformity is similar in places round about at Proposition) attract one the other with a force decreasing in the duplicate proportion of the distance between, their centres.”

First, it clearly follows from Newton’s view of gravity that the earth should be a perfect sphere and it isn’t. There are mountains and valleys etc. His sophistic attempt to circumvent this argument further complicates his physics and metaphysics. So which part is the earth? Which cell is me? How can you then have any theory of a center of mass when your subject is a congeries of subjects? Does each part have a center of mass? Then how can the earth have a center of mass? Center from what?

Now, I love Newton. Anyone who knows me knows I adore this man. He was a Brilliant man and a massive nerd just like me. He spent most of his time writing Theology and I agree with about 99% of what he said. Some will complain that he is a traitor and is the biggest influence behind atheism and infidelity today. If that is so, and there is some basis for that accusation, he didn’t mean for it to be. Newton maintained His Heliocentric Cosmology was not Atheistic in his Four Letters to Doctor Bentley, containing some arguments in proof of a Deity.

The way I see it, Newton was a victim of his time. He was a professional Scientist and Educator and the Philosophy of Physical Science at that time was Pantheistic Alchemy and he was simply extending the previous Alchemist Literature into his sphere of influence.

Let us try and interpret this man with some charity. His work on the Trinity with Clarke is priceless, his prophecy work is priceless, and his Scientific work is still the reason we have the comforts of our modern technological utopia and with these tools maybe we can correct the mistakes he made and lead the next generation into a Golden Age.

[1] See Letter from Newton to Robert Boyle, dated 28 February 1678/9

[2] http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22914/22914-h/22914-h.htm

[3] Ibid., 102-121

[4] http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/prism.php?id=46

[5] http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton/mss/dipl/ALCH00017

[6] Walter Pagel, Paracelsus: An Introduction to Philosophical Medicine in the Era of the Renaissance

[7] McIlhenny, Kindle Edition- 2.4-2.8

[8] McIlhenny, 2.5

[9] Quote taken from B.Y.T. Dobbs, The Foundations of Newton’s Alchemy (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1975, 2008), 37

[10] Ibid., 37

[11] Ibid., 38

[12] Ibid.

[13] Entry H1311: http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/prism.php?id=88

[14] http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/NATP00266

[15] Sir Isaac Newton, Principia ed. Andrew Motte (Daniel Adee, New York, 1846), 217

[16] Ibid., 507

[17] Dobbs, 211

[18] http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/sta37.htm

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s