- The Dark Enlightenment:
- The movement that concludes that the Enlightenment took a bad turn, or that the Enlightenment itself was a bad turn. I take both positions: That the Enlightenment was wildly and dangerously wrong to proclaim all men created equal, and that restoration England was a pretty good political system, which gave us the scientific and industrial revolutions, and the British conquest of most of the world, and it has been downhill since the restoration, with things going to hell in a handbasket around 1800 or so, and getting steadily worse since then.
- Dark Enlightenment:
- Forbidden knowledge about society. For example that while women want their husband to do woman’s work around the house, they don’t want their husband if their husband does woman’s work around the house. If you realize the truth of some hate fact, you have been darkly enlightened (verb).
- The Endarkenment.
- Plain meaning: The coming dark age of the west, and perhaps the world, the rise of magical and superstitious thinking, for example Hillary Clinton and Oprah Winfrey, the transformation of science into theocracy, the stagnation of an increasing number of technologies.
- Ironic meaning: A sarcastic reference to the enlightenment, implying that it blinded men, rather than enabling them to see. Roger Bacon and Galileo popularized rationality, but Voltaire and Rousseau abandoned rationality. That the planets go around the sun follows from the evidence. That all men are created equal defies the evidence.
- The Left Singularity:
- Leftism leads to more ever more leftism, ever faster. If the process was not interrupted by dictatorship, civil war, or social collapse, it would end with everyone torturing each other to death for insufficient leftism, Khmer Rouge style, and the last torturer committing suicide for his failure to inflict infinite torture in finite time.
Why was restoration England’s political system “pretty good”?
Freedom, (not counting women, live in servants, homeless people, slaves, etc)
Truth
Science
Economic growth, the industrial revolution.
Conquest.
Ok, but what is the standard by which these things are judged as being “pretty good”?
Better than any other culture or civilization. The Scientific Revolution occurred under the institutions and in the culture of restoration England. The Industrial revolution occurred under the institutions of and in the culture of restoration England. The did not occur at any other place, or any other time.
From the restoration, to around 1860 or so, everyone could speak the truth. Today, they have to lie all the time about an ever growing collection of topics.
Today, everyone is afraid. Back then, they were unafraid.
From the restoration to around 1830 or so, they conquered an empire on which the sun never set, the greatest empire that ever there was.
So: The greatest civilization that ever there was.
Doesn’t sound like you’ve thought this through, Jim.
“Doesn’t sound like you’ve thought this through, Jim.”
Yes it does.
The invention of the practical steam engine alone is probably the greatest advance in all of human history. That came directly out of freedom to exchange ideas, the ability to money from making more productive machines, and rewarding people with status for creating something useful, instead of status for being holier than you.
What’s the over/under on Terrence being a real person and not a paid blog disrupter?
Ideological absurdities of the present age notwithstanding, I’m still glad I’m alive today instead of then.
Come on, this is basic reasoning, correlation does not equal causation, you’re thinking like Leftists.
Red explained the causation in reasonable detail. I explained it briefly and cryptically in this post, and at greater length in other posts.
Poe’s law.
But really, all you need to remember is the hierarchy of argument. “I’m sorry, is this the five minute argument, or the full half hour?”
>From the restoration, to around 1860 or so, everyone could speak the truth. Today, they have to lie all the time about an ever growing collection of topics.
I find this statement hard to believe.
From the restoration to 1860, there were a nontrivial number of English homosexuals. Most of them lied and claimed to be heterosexual – presumably due to a fear of legal prosecution and social persecution. Therefore not all Englishmen were speaking the truth during that time period.
So one or two percent had to lie about their own sexuality. Today, 100%, male and female, have to lie about female sexuality.
The only downside to this is that Restoration England only lasted 28 years, from 1660 until the Glorious Revolution. This is a very brief time period of absolute monarchy, in contrast to 149 years of successful monarchy in France, 288 in Prussia, and 500+ in Austria.
Also, the Industrial Revolution wasn’t until significantly later, when Parliament basically had control, past 1760.
It is the officially approved belief system that sets the cultural milieu, and until 1824, everyone who wanted to go to more prestigious academies, or get anywhere near the levers of power, had to subscribe to the thirty nine Articles, had to subscribe to the tenets of theocratic Anglicanism, restoration Anglicanism. All the key players of the Industrial revolution were raised in that compulsory and uniform culture, much as today everyone learns about Marie Curie and Florence nightingale, and if they want to go to the correct university, have to write essays signaling fealty to the official tenets of progressivism.
So it was officially restoration Anglican Theocracy, all the way from 1660 to 1824. Today, you have to write essays on how far left you are. Back then, you had to declare your faith in the thirty nine articles and the second book of homilies.
I don’t agree. The ruling class of gentlemen was still the ruling class of gentlemen all the way from 1660 to 1832. The army was still a disorderly neo feudal coalition of gentlemen adventurers with their assorted camp followers all the way to 1870, and the official religion was still the official religion all the way to 1824.
What made restoration England was the culture, the official compulsory culture, and what made the official compulsory culture was the official religion, the thirty nine articles and the second book of homilies.
Thanks for your informative response. You’re putting a lot of emphasis on religion and culture and not so much on the government per se. I care more about the government because while the old government can theoretically be revived, I doubt that the original religion or culture can be.
What is government?
Seems to me that the government in the sense of the theocracy, in the sense of that apparatus that enforces the official belief system, that you have to write essays showing yourself to be a leftist to get into the good universities or government employment, that businessmen are apt to face racism and sexism lawsuits in which the beliefs and utterances of their employees will be used against them, is more important in our ever leftwards movement, than government in the sense of whether it is Bush or Obama bailing out the banks.
[…] Dark Enlightenment and the Endarkenment « Jim’s Blog […]
> The Scientific Revolution occurred under the institutions and in the culture of restoration England. The Industrial revolution occurred under the institutions of and in the culture of restoration England. The did not occur at any other place, or any other time.
h/t Nicholaus Copernicus
Copernicus and Galileo did not lead to the scientific revolution, perhaps because Copernicus did not publish till he was beyond reach of the torturers, while Galileo was threatened with torture and placed under house arrest.
Then the Restoration happened
Newton received his nations greatest honors, was given a well paid and highly prestigious government appointment, and buried in Westminster Abbey.
The scientific revolution occurred in England, not in Italy. The first scientific journal was “Proceedings of the Royal Society”. Note that “Royal”. Before the restoration, science was everywhere low status, disreputable, and dangerous – much like the manosphere today, or climate skepticism today – or indeed pretty much any unofficial science today.
After the restoration, every British pirate who aspired to be a gentleman would do something scientific in between extorting chests of bloodstained gold from terrified sultans. Science was high status.
Copernicus was encouraged by the Church to pursue his work, as was Galileo. There is no evidence that Copernicus feared “the torturers,” who, in any event, did not exist. Galileo was never punished for his scientific ideas. Galileo explicitly made fun of the Pope while living in a state which had good relations with the Vatican. After having alienated all of his allies. So, he was humiliated. Doing it on the basis of his work was handy.
Of course, neither Copernicus nor Galileo “led” to the scientific revolution. There is nothing in either man’s corpus which is especially new or interesting in this regard. As far as anyone can tell, Copernicus was an astronomy geek interested in finding new and more convenient ways to make astronomical predictions. Heliocentrism was cute but not any better than the standard, geocentric model. Basically, his work itself was a failure and did not create much of anything in the way of new methods.
For Galileo, one can say that he founded modern telescopic astronomy. But, telescopic astronomy pretty much sucks, intellectually. Galileo’s method and astronomy’s method goes like this:
1. Sit around waiting for engineers to invent stuff
2. Point stuff at sky
3. See new things in sky
4. Sign name
5. Goto 1
One way of interpreting the speed-up of science in the eighteenth century is that it embodied roughly this same method. Thermodynamics got its start when scientists got interested in how steam engines worked, for example. So, the advance in technology coming out of the industrial revolution caused the advance in science.
After the restoration, every British pirate who aspired to be a gentleman would do something scientific in between extorting chests of bloodstained gold from terrified sultans. Science was high status.
That’s another interpretation. Science seems to move quickly when it is a widespread rich man’s hobby (based on a ridiculously small sample size, though). As it fell out of fashion, the system of university tenure partially re-created it. A tenured professor who is interested in his field is, or used to be, a pretty fair facsimile of a rich hobbyist. But, rents attract bureaucrats who turn everything into a sclerotic mess which endlessly needs more bureaucrats to sort it out. So, the system now has evolved to a place where science gets done by accident alone in many fields.
That the planets go around the sun follows from the evidence.
Rubbish. The evidence favored geocentrism when Galileo had his run-in with the Inquisition. Kepler’s eventual formulation of heliocentrism with elliptical orbits arguably tipped the balance of evidence towards heliocentrism, and Newton’s Principia certainly did. Then, for a brief period in the 19th C, from the successful measurement of Stellar Parallax to the Michelson Morley experiment, heliocentrism looked very solid. Now, of course, we know it to be false.
Who was it that gave Galileo a tour of the instruments of torture?
Compare career of Newton, with careers of Copernicus and Galileo. Copernicus was furtive, Galileo in deep shit, Newton buried in Westminster Cathedral. While the Roman Catholic Church was not as dreadful as it is sometimes painted, it simply undeniable that Restoration Anglicanism was way better, unless they moved Galileo’s body to Saint Peter’s Basilica while I was not looking.
Phases of Venus shows that Venus goes around the sun, disproving Ptolmiac geocentrism and providing compelling evidence for heliocentrism.
Given the evidence of Venus, if you want to preserve geocentrism, you have to go with the Tychonic, rather than Ptolmiac, system, which no one was willing to do.
Surface of the moon shows that it is the same kind of object as the earth. Moons of Saturn show that Saturn and its moons is the same kind of thing as the earth moon system, therefore all of them made of common stuff, while the sun, obviously, is made of fire.
That science was higher status under the system that prevailed from the restoration to around 1830 or so is obvious from people’s behavior. Being scientific then was like being supposedly vegan now. Science was something status seekers did. Instead of holier than thou, one sought to demonstrate one was more attentive to reality than thou. Now it is absolutely not on the list of SWPL. Whether the gentleman system or the professor system produced better science, the gentleman system was motivated by status seeking, which status ceased to exist.
The stars are not heliocentric. The planets are. Galileo was right, the Roman Church was wrong. The location of Newton’s body shows that the Restoration Anglican Church was right.
>Given the evidence of Venus, if you want to preserve geocentrism, you have to go with the Tychonic, rather than Ptolmiac, system, which no one was willing to do.
I disagree.
Many Aristotelians cited Aristotle’s arguments against geocentrism, and they had most of the evidence on their side until photography was perfected. After photographic evidence was available, *then* heliocentrism was hard to argue against.
Also, the real scientific revolution was Rosicrucianism. Newton was a genius, but he had the tradition of Rosicrucian alchemy to inspire him.
Also, the real engineering revolution was the Venice Arsenal, which invented industrial engineering and the medieval form of mass production.
I used to have web pages detailing some of the above points, but I took them down because no one bothered to read them. Maybe I should pull them out of the archives and repost them.
The eye looking through a telescope could always see better than a camera looking through a telescope. Anyone who looked through a telescope could see what Galileo saw, that Venus showed phases. That Venus showed phases showed that it circled the sun, which sunk the Aristotlean and Ptolmiac cosmologies.
If one circled the sun, then all, or if you did not like all, you had to accept the Tychonic cosmology, which few did. So Galileo had undeniable proof, which to deny was ignorant and stupid, proof that the Aristotlean and Ptolemiac systems were false, and evidence that the Copernican system was true.
Most ships were produced by craft techniques. Before the steam engine, Venetian mass production could not significantly undercut craft production. What made mass production effectual was machine power, the steam engine. If you have a man turning the drill or rubbing a file, mass production does not gain you much.
[…] Dark Enlightenment and the Endarkenment « Jim’s Blog […]
Descartes was something of a scienter, and died at the court of Queen Christina of Sweden in 1650. Pascal, possibly a more accomplished natural scientist given his elucidation of pressure, gave her a mechanical calculator — not sure when, but he invented it in ’42 and promulgated it in ’45.
But I’m sure you know I’m just being all Continental/Germanic for the sake of it. As I mentioned at Mencius’, I probably would have preferred Bonaparte — or the Kaiserreich succeeding where Bonaparte failed. England have I loved, but the other countries more. It’s partly my blood, but more a matter of other, less geo-hematic determinants.
Then again, for me there is probably no artist in history to match Thomas Tallis. His patron was incidentally Elizabeth, a latitudinarian standout (I will not make windows into men’s souls), and probably a pretty good foe of left singularity.
Descartes did most of his great works while he was living in the Netherlands. Netherlands is an example of nation that didn’t fall into the holier than thou trap until recent times and as such had a lot contributions to the scientific and industrial revolutions. The Pharisees/Puritans/Sophists are essentially a parasitical class of people who try to take over civilizations by setting up status systems based on intellectual games that they excel at.
The actual output of a civilization is entirely the output of it’s “genetic stock” + “knowledge” – “parasitical classes damage”. England, France,Germany, and Spain had reached the pinnacle of their genetic stock thanks to a 1000 years of feudalism and war. Once the bonds of feudalism were lifted there was little doubt they were all going to do great things. The only questions was how much damage would the parasitical classes do to each group.
When the mongols invaded Europe they were very disappointed in the lack loot from the cities they took, but they were very impressed with the quality of people they captured. As much as I despise Protestantism, it’s also clear to me that without Protestantism feudalism might have continued for another 5 or 6 centuries in creating great peoples without those people ever expanding to beyond their own borders.
There is no one protestantism, just as there is no one rightism. Whosoever disagreed with the Roman Catholic Church on any one of a hundred points of doctrine was a protestant, whosoever disagrees with the left on any one of ten thousand points of doctrine is a rightist.
But, by and large, the protestants mostly suffered from Phariseeism to a greater or lesser extent. If Restoration Anglicanism escaped that curse, it was because of Charles the Second and General Monck.
Unfortunately you are simply reciting propaganda concerning Englands role as etc. etc.
The dark enlightenment was England’s rise, as that nation is a nation of extremely sophisticated plunderers, and nothing more.
As for scientific achievement, outside of easily disproved propaganda – such as Newton – Babbage – Darwin…et al. England speciality has always been to plunder and capitalize on others social benefits – such as scientific research, and to rewrite history in order to claim it as their own. They capitalize first on other’s slow growth scientific research, because they have always been disintigrating and rebuilding their own society in favor of the elite, to the detriment of the British people… just as they are now.
You are extremely unsophisticated historically, merely repeating anglo myths. It should be easy for you to trace back the destruction of Europe as an ‘idea’ and ‘ideal’, to the genesis of all present day ideological insanity to one nation – England.
And as always – in the name of ‘nationalist pride’ – the greatest ‘empire’ was a marketing term and a flash in the pan – there was no such thing – and it was no great achievement. It’s unfortunate you cannot turn your lens on your own ideas, for they are facile to a not inconsiderable degree.
Newton and Darwin were the scientific revolution, as the steam engine was the industrial revolution.
Munshi Abdullah contrasts the rule of the rajas with the rule of the white man, and attributes colonialism to the wrath of God against the Rajas:
Munshi Abdullah tells us
Jim:
Your reply, for which I thank you, is nothing more than tendentious assertions, that have nothing to do with the matter at hand. My point is that your own outlook is firmly within the sphere of the ‘dark enlightenment’, in that it is false and misleading, and that you should re-examine your own outlook closer.
Newton was a major principle of that ‘dark enlightenment’. All his theories have been proven to be wrong, or stolen, plagiarized, or extorted from others, often using his power as Inspector general of the mint to send a fellow ‘scientist’ to prison. We now can see Newton spent most of his time pondering how Solomon built his temple… the prime years of his life was spent on one topic – I was interested in this so I opened a bible to find out just what did Newton expect to learn from Solomon – and found Solomon had a ‘ring’ which he used to command demons from hell to build his temple – quite serious…. this is your British enlightenment, and this is the Newton who you hold forth as a ‘genius’, a man who can demonstrably shown without doubt to have plagiarized his major theories, redirecting the course of European science and culture .
As for Darwin, he was nothing but a excellent novelist. Lamark not only published a theory of evolution first, as Mendel demonstrated mathematical laws of heredity before Darwin even published, but Lamark was right while Darwin was wrong. Darwin gave us the raft of imbeciles armed with his illogical syllogisms where every facet and trait of life is explained by a moron tossing out two or three sentences on a thirst for brown ale is explained by survival of the fittest, or a choice of silver cufflinks is explained by adaptation… or complete ‘social’ management.
If Darwin and Newton where founders of a scientific revolution, then it could not have been a ‘scientific’ revolution, but some other kind of revolution… with the ‘science’ being of some other type than is commonly understood.
Further it was Britain that laid the seeds and nurtured the destruction of Europe in the XX century, and the destruction of America as a free country – with the destruction of Britain itself in the bargain, or that part of it that was European.
I like you blog very much and thank you for it. But I suggest to you that your own ideas are products of the ‘Dark Enlightenment’ you query.
Nuts
Jim: I’m unsurprised by the conceptual poverty of your reply. However, the case against Newton is clear and unassailable, as well as the other frauds foisted upon the world by the British Oligarchical nihilist system.
My point is that the source of the ‘Dark Enlightenment’ is none other than your favourite sceptre’d Isl.
Even the ludicrous nature of your previous reply – recounting a meaningless diatribe amongst colonized Malays – should cause you to check your own logic for the source of it’s irrationality. However you feel about the subject – the vast conceptual hole in your own perspective should be an alert you’re missing something patently obvious and in front of your face.
Thanks
etype
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you had any evidence, would have presented it by now.
Jim:
The evidence is so overwhelming the question soon becomes another; ‘what is going on?’ And Newton is only one of these great British geniuses and purloined scientific revolutions – the continual plagiarism charges between Hooke and Newton, plus numerous others, the jailing of Salt on counterfeit charges when he would not release his treatises to Newton, who then promptly includes his work in his Principa. The fact Newton claimed priority for calculus – when he didn’t publish until 20 years after Liebniz – the confessions of perjury from Newton’s chief witnesses – the fact the Newton’s fluxions are obviously a childish attempt to ape Liebniz – the facts of the ‘Portsmouth papers’, that necessitated dispersing the papers before the public could see them in entirety, on and on, right done to the present day… where the the English haul out a drooling spastic in a chair who mouths a few paraphrases from Heisenberg’s letters to Bohr through a voicebox (probably read by someone offstage) and suddenly England is the celebrity leader in quantum physics. The fact scientifically England is a leader in nothing but plundering, their best scientists sidelined by political schemers, or employed in propaganda and cryptography.
The question is the ‘Dark Enlightenment’, who are the principal actors and what are they trying to achieve? What are they trying to divert us from? Why do British bigots such as yourself revert to rhetorical gambits – when it becomes clear it is your country which is the source of this psychological poisoning of nations, history and mankind?
Newton is famous for the laws of motion, not calculus. Whoever developed calculus, makes no difference to the fact that the Scientific revolution was English.
Newton was the first to publish solutions that relied upon calculus, so was first to develop calculus, even though he did not fully develop and explicate it as a mathematical discipline until after Leibniz had done so. Leibniz was the first to realize calculus could be put on a sound mathematical footing, Newton the first to develop it and use it extensively to solve problems. However, Newton felt that such methods were philosophically and mathematically unsound, until Leibniz showed otherwise.
The priority disputes between Newton and Leibniz are about trivial details, which no one today remembers, and few today can understand. Newton developed calculus first, Leibniz justified calculus first. The rest is details incomprehensible to moderns.
Jim: thank you for you reply. As I expected, you merely repeat incorrect and mistaken information. Scholars had been using Liebniz’s methods decades before Newton demonstrated an ability to understand the method, as he hadn’t published his own, and when it was published, was incomplete and erroneous. Also, I’m sure you’ll agree, but Newton has no priority to the laws of motion, these are just part of his summa, and in no way attributed to Newton, except to a patriot such as yourself who claims what isn’t so. Newton’s laws has been conclusively shown to be a plunder of Kepler’s third law, again shown in his reference to the ‘Astronomia Carolina’ in his notes, this case was solved in his own time. Another small point it seems you are unaware of, but no schoolboy or scholar in the world uses Newton’s mathematics, despite individuals such as yourself claiming otherwise, they use Liebniz’s, and then people such as yourself attribute this to a British scientific revolution… which as I said was a revolution, it’s just the science of ‘what’ is in question.
But perhaps you’ll agree, the Newton controversy is a minor detail, one of a continuing method of practice right up to the present day, and reaching into all matters of human life and endeavour – and that is the ‘Dark Enlightenment’, or a consistent effort to retard human consciousness, limit it to a nihilistic materialism, and exercise complete control over it’s perspective and action. That would be your ‘British Scientific Revolution’ in action, which reached over the earth in search of plunder – material, physical and intellectual, stole from it, and then sanctified the theft in an odd cross between crude jingoist opportunism and extreme psychological manipulation… such as claiming a ‘British Scientific Revolution’.
It’s unfortunate but it seems you common British, or British descendant individual can not look impartially at the matter, because you are in it’s cross-hairs as much as any other, even when the record is so clear when read as historical documents leading to the finding of a consistent method of practice.
Kepler’s laws follow from Newtons. Newtons do not follow from Kepler’s
Newton used calculus to deduce Kepler’s laws from his own.
Kepler’s laws follow from Newtons. Newtons do not follow from Kepler’s
This is practically insulting, do some research.
Newton used calculus to deduce Kepler’s laws from his own.
It doesn’t require calculus, just mere extrapolation and renaming as a ‘British Scientific Revolution’. As I said this case was solved in his own time – do some research.
I always find this among you British pot bangers- there is a point where you just begin to fabricate like automatons. You don’t care for truth whatsoever.
Let’s do a thought experiment. If Britain had disappeared beneath the waves in 1200 or 1800 what would the Europe be like today? Devoid of Scientific achievement? Hardly, they would be centuries in the future. Germany and France, but especially Germany was always centuries ahead of Britain in any matter except propaganda, as that is where the British have always plundered scientific technique, renaming it as another ‘british revolution’. The human culture of the continent no British era can match even vaguely.
Constantinople would be reunited with Europe, the Americans would be free, the 20th century would have had no world wars. We would probably have manned spacecraft on Jupiter’s moons.
I’m sure you’ll say otherwise, demonstrating you do not have any idea what you are talking about, and probably don’t care what is wrong or right. But the fact remains in truth England has been Europe’s cancer. England has been able to successfully control the debate, and put through their lies through force. But this is wearing off now, and Britain can be seen now for what it is and what it has done. I predict in less than a century there will be no Britain, but a smoking lump of dirt in the Atlantic, consumed by the very evils they worked to export to other countries so they could ‘rule the waves’ or somesuch, and the name English will be synonymous will mental disease.
I don’t say this to insult you, or reduce the conversation to oaths, but because it is true, and it is happening now. As for mental disease – you’re jiggery with Newton/Kepler or Newton in general – a small point to elucidate that you can’t see truth – you refuse to see truth – no matter what! You use the classic technique of a catatonic psychopath – straightforward dishonesty and refusal to admit otherwise. This is what I mean by the ‘Dark Enlightenment’ with a few trinkets and nationlist tinsel you’re entire people not only march to their historic grave, but work to bring all of Europe and European people with them.
This is a fact of mathematics, not a historical question. I can do the maths. Evidently you cannot do the maths.
From the Restoration to around 1870 or so, the scientific revolution was as British as the restoration Anglicanism that honored it and protected it.
If Britain had disappeared beneath the waves in 1760 or before, no steam engine, thus no trains, no automobile, no mass production. Wars would still be fought on horseback. The big pollution problem would still be horse manure on the streets. Most of Africa would resemble today’s Zimbabwe or Congo, ruled by cannibal savages.
Jim:
You’ve stumbled on the problem here, and because you refuse to see it you’re reduced to babbling. Now how could Kepler’s laws, which were published and printed in entirety, without revision, 30 years before Newton was born, follow from Newton’s laws?
Kepler’s third law also presumes gravity, and describes it in his third law.
Newton admitted the ‘Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica’ was based entirely on Kepler’s 1st and 2nd law in a trial concerning the plagiarism inherent in the tome mention formally – but claimed he’d never heard of Kepler’s 3rd law. Yet his notes reference the ‘Astronomica Carolina’ which is summed by Kepler’s 3rd law, and states so in clear and direct language, plus it’s providence in the ‘Astronomia Nova’.
As for Newton’s mysterious ‘Method of Fluxions’ which he claimed but would not produce, the notes he provided 30 years later where laughable forgeries and withdrawn from public scrutiny – his principal witnesses admitted the perjury – and this ‘method of fluxions’ remained hidden and not reintroduced until a decade after his death and a misbegotten attempt to continue this farcical theft.
The calculus in question is ‘infinitesimal’ not ‘differential’.
Keplers work referenced planets, not moons as you say, is called ‘Harmonices Mundi’ and the section containing the summa of Keplers laws is translated as ‘The Harmony of Planets.’
And it’s not just Newton… British science is built on stealing others ideas and claiming credit right down to today. Any decent British scientist was sidelined while political lickspittles ruled the chairs of their universities like an aristocracy.
Today they claim ‘Hawking’ as the newest British contribution to science, so they reduced science to the point of a freak show. Hawking has never published an idea which is not a direct plagiarism available in any University bookstore, but isn’t it amazing anyway? He should be on British Celebrity Idol television series.
It’s not just Newton, or science either – there much even darker beneath it.
Because laws exist out there in the world, not in people’s minds. Kepler observed one of the consequences of Newtons laws, but had no explanation for why this was happening. Newton, using calculus, explained why this was happening.
You are just making stuff up.
Jim:
Thank you for a game attempt at replying. Unfortunately, since you’re reduced to absurdities and dishonesty we cannot discuss this further. This happens naturally when you accept propagandist lies and false consciousness and attempt to further propagate these lies in the face of clear evidence. Britain in the main is a nation of self-righteous plunderers and liars attempting to appropriate European culture and technique in pursuit of power and money. Unfortunately, her future will be the result of this counterfeit posturing.
I claimed you were making stuff up. If you were not making stuff up, you could try finding the original source for your claims, the actual historical documents, and quoting from them.
Since you don’t, I conclude you cannot.
You claimed that Newton denied familiarity with Kepler, a claim that is fantastic, bizarre, and absurd. What possible motive would Newton have to deny familiarity with Kepler?
If Newton made such a claim, produce it.
There’s a huge gap between:
>All his theories have been proven to be wrong, or stolen, plagiarized, or extorted from others
and
>Newton’s laws has been conclusively shown to be a plunder of Kepler’s third law, again shown in his reference to the ‘Astronomia Carolina’ in his notes, this case was solved in his own time.
Newton was not operating in an intellectual vacuum. Of course he was in contact with other scholars. That doesn’t mean he plagiarized every single idea that the wrote down!
I would need to check primary and secondary sources to verify that Newton’s laws were inspired by Kepler – but even if that turns out to be true, that doesn’t mean Newton plagiarized Kepler! Scientists see farther than their predecessors because they stand on the shoulders of said predecessors!
etype may have a point about the german scientists. In lot of areas the English, Dutch, and Germans played off each in discoveries and new ideas/systems. Being a scientist was not as high status in Germany and the Netherlands at first, but under Protestantism, they finally had the freedom to try and publish what they felt like publishing thus attracting geeks to scientific pursuits. What does appear clear is the over all output in most scientific fields was much higher in England for quite a while. Though the rest of Europe began to catch up as they copied english values in the relevant areas.
I’m more a genetics determines history type of guy. I view political/religious systems as drags on the full potential of people while acting as the conductor when it comes to who reproduces and order in society. Freedom must be given to those who innovate to make money and for the joy of innovation. Politics/Religion must direct who reproduces through status/warfare and keeps things orderly so that people wanting to invent to make a buck are free to do so.
Every system thus constructed attracts parasites that must be purged. It’s the identification and purging that the human race sucks at. For example the Chinese ran the clock backwards for hundreds because their system’s inability to purge the parasitical and control reproduction in a useful manner.
No, there was a court case in his own time where he disavowed any influence or prior art, or have even heard of Kepler’s law! However in his notes he mentions the Carolina where Kepler’s law are not only cited, but the basis of.
This is not really about the science in question, but about the social zeitgeist… as science was remaking the entire human outlook of the cosmos. It is also the consistent method found in any of the numerous plagiarism trials Newton endured. Most are obscured by present day British propaganda, but you can still find and unravel them for your own enlightenment.
The case that the Royal Society was set up for the official purpose of plagiarism and perjury is overwhelming. The number of Newton’s witnesses who later admitted perjury freely and without duress also condemns anything adjudicated by the Royal Society… anything whatsoever.
At bottom, what it suggests is that it was a world view they were fighting against… a world view which produced all the technique and science now claimed as a ‘British Scientific Revoltution.’
I suggested above a thought experiment, what if Britain and the English had disappeared through earthquake or whatever in 1200 or 1800? What would the world be like?
And space aliens told you this.
Kepler’s laws follow from Newtons laws. Newton’s laws do not follow from Kepler’s laws. Therefore, no sane person can possibly accuse Newton of plagiarism on the basis of whether Newton had or had not heard of Kepler’s laws. Your claims are on par with claiming to be able to fly by means of eye beams from space aliens.
Nor, in fact, did Newton deny having heard of Kepler’s laws, nor could he ever possibly have any reason to deny having heard of Kepler’s laws.
Newton deduced Kepler’s laws from Newtons laws using calculus. That is the big discovery that is the foundations of the scientific revolution.
Your arguments are just deranged babbling. They don’t fit the physics and the maths. Newton’s laws really were a new and fundamental discovery. Using calculus to derive the implications of those laws really was new mathematics.
To say that X plagiarized Y, you cannot claim evidence from court cases, you have to produce the relevant material from X and Y. And the relevant materials is Kepler’s laws and Newton’s laws. Newton’s laws simply are not a plagiarism of Kepler’s laws.
Jim:
It is unfortunate but it is you who is babbling, as ‘British Scientific Revolution’ adherents usually do, nor do you have a mathematical education beyond fanatic belief in British propaganda and lies.
Kepler’s laws follow from Newtons laws. Newton’s laws do not follow from Kepler’s laws.
Kepler wrote his laws 30 years, and died 12 years before Newton was even born. Understand? The laws of the harmony of planets, gravitional spheres, laws of motion etc. had already been written by Kepler before Newton was born.
Can you understand this? Or do you have some ridiculous assertion to explain away everything?
Furthermore your uneducated assertion Newton resolved his so-called ‘laws’ through calculus, not even an educated proponent of Newton would claim this… because it is completely impossible and unnessary (calculus is not used for this purpose) only someone such as yourself, of which there are many, who cares nothing of truth – claims what is on the surface laughable
To say that X plagiarized Y, you cannot claim evidence from court cases, you have to produce the relevant material from X and Y.
Well I just did, the fact that Kepler’s laws were written before Newon was born – that there is not a single scientist, nor a scientific law in history derived from Newton’s calculus, which is incomplete and unworkable and forgotten the moment it was released (20 years after Liebniz’s calculus, which the world used then and today) may not seem a big deal, or perhaps the babbling of aliens, but unfortunately it is incontestable truth.
After this is just one point at the beginning starting with Newton. British science is one long history of plunder, or British history is one long history of plundering. And the world will be wise to it in the near future. There is a price to pay for limitless lying to make oneself seem important – one becomes a fool in the eyes of the world. Britain cannot survive this at this point in history. Britain is probably already lost because of her posturing – there is no substance to her and her people can feel it. It is time to stop the mad charade and find a source of pride dependant on real things.
Thanks Jim, I apologize if I sound vehement. Incidentally, of Newtons laws, the only one of significance is the the law of gravity, which the other laws derive from, that it is derived from Kepler’s third law, is already understood. If you want a demonstration, you need to be able to do calculus, but perhaps I can find it and point you too it.
But Newton’s laws do not follow from Kepler’s laws. Kepler’s laws follow from Newton’s laws, are a particular solution to the differential equations that Newton’s laws express. This is a fact of mathematics and physics, not a fact of history. For example, Newton’s laws describe the motion of balls and moons and planets. Kepler’s laws do not describe the motion of balls, and only partially describe the motion of moons.
Newton’s laws are a set of differential equations. Using calculus, one can derive many solutions to those equations. One set of solutions that Newton derived was Kepler’s laws.
If it was not for restoration England, the world would still rely on horses for transport.
I can settle this problem for the two of you very simply.
Kepler proposed what he believed were laws of “Planetary Motion”. That’s all he was looking at. In his time it was not understood that laws of physics applied to all matter, he thought that celestial bodies were special.
Newton was able to understand that what Kepler had described in fact applied to everything. So he proposed laws of universal motion, not planetary motion. He created the first attempt at a unified-field theory of physics. He wasn’t entirely correct, but he was more correct than Kepler, if less correct than Einstein.
The issue you guys are arguing about is a history-of-science issue, not an actual science issue.
It’s my personal view that science as we now understand it only really begins during the window between Galileo and Newton, and that everything before them, even in quite learned cultures, was what we might call proto-science. Not that Galileo and Newton and their coevals were greater thinkers than say Archimedes, but that they had access to the necessary tools to make real science possible, which weren’t really extant before their time. But that’s an argument for another day.
Oscar;
Kepler’s summa was called ‘Harmonice Munda’ (Harmony of the World) inside of it the 2nd chapter was the ‘Astronomica Nuvo’ showing the the same laws he expressly states the of the world apply to all the universe. You are right it is a historical question, however the provenance is clear all the most foreknown British Scientists were political appointees engaged in plagiarism and propaganda. There are many, many fascinating parallels with this story, that extend to all of Britain’s foremost scientists, including Einstein. Newton is just the beginning.
One example the irrefutable fact Newton was a Satanist and necromancer (his alchemy was only in pursuit of that, as his own notes of what was salvaged from the Portsmouth papers clearly shows. and one of the first corrupted Freemasons… why were the papers of Britain’s foremost scientific figure dispersed without anyone being able to study them in entirety? Especially as what little is available is so negatively fascinating.What is going on?)
And this is not just Newton, hardly, it includes those around him and the later British establishment. The question is more about world view, what where they trying to cover up? Why were they trying to retard man’s knowledge unless it was commercially valuable? It is a question of forensics. Gentlemen, such as yourself are extremely awkward outside of your mental conditioning, and would much rather repeat cant, like sheep, no matter how absurd, as Jim has done.
But as this post concerns the ‘Dark Enlightenment’ I thought it curious how you reference it and then go on to repeat easily disproved lies – a textbook example of ‘false consciousness’.
Obviously cricket balls do not obey Kepler’s laws, though they do obey Newton’s laws.
You made the fantastic and absurd claim that Newton denied having read Kepler. Produce evidence for that claim.
The concept you can plunder another civilization and become richer your self has always fascinated me as it’s quite clear that real wealth comes from people, not goods. The taking of Mexico from the Aztecs was a net drain on the economy of Spain as Spain sacrificed both military arms and man power and in return got massive inflation due to the gold flowing back. No actual wealth in terms of population, arms, or food flowed back from the new world.
Well, it enriches the individual plunderer, even though society as a whole may be all the poorer for it.
It continues to this day in the form of “bailouts†and “quantitative easing.â€
If the individual plunderer settles down to become a stationary bandit, which is pretty much what happened in the British empire, he may well enrich the plundered society, if the government he replaces, or shakes down, was decadent.
The problem is that a government that lacks internal cohesion may well function like a horde of mobile bandits. Thus, for example, more and more institutions and individuals are getting what is effectively the right to print money, for example debt with implicit government guarantees. The public treasury becomes a commons, and suffers the tragedy of the commons.
Right, and the players are smart, well-organized, well-spoken, right-thinking and the game is played at a very high level because it’s all about deception. In reality, it’s just the white-collar equivalent of breaking into the neighbor’s house.
I guess there is no solution but hard money. Kyle Bass suggests a basket of various stuff to back it. I guess soft money is supposed to pose certain advantages, but it’s hard to see how they can outweigh the degeneracy described by Jim.
I guess a final alternative is a free market in hard and/or soft public and/or private moneys, but I don’t know much about how that would play out.
Whether fiat currency is a good system depends on the virtue of the regime: Right now a lot of people want to get into Swiss Franks and Singaporean dollars.
But virtue is difficult to reliably achieve. Even if a regime starts of virtuous, it is apt to succumb to moral decay. In the first great hyperinflation of modern times, the French Revolutionary Assignat, they started off as models of fiscal probity, but not long thereafter they were cutting off people’s heads for refusing to accept assignats, skinning their bodies, and using the hides to bind books containing propaganda for their fiscal policy.
The concept you can plunder another civilization and become richer your self has always fascinated me as it’s quite clear that real wealth comes from people, not goods.
This is the true law. This is why the British people, and Europe which has suffered from her false prominence, is in endanger from extinction. Unfortunately for the British the truth is very painful, but it must come out.
[…] Dark Enlightenment and the Endarkenment « Jim’s Blog […]
[…] James Donald defines Dark Enlightenment (and contemplates a restoration). […]
[…] Donald defines Dark Enlightenment and contemplates a […]
[…] https://blog.reaction.la/science/dark-enlightenment-and-the-endarkenment/ […]