>
> As for Newtonian physics, I'm not interested. I am, however, very
> interested in NEWTON's physics and the other matters that informed his
> thought. Newton wrote literally a barn full of stuff. 1/3 of it dealt with
> matters of physics, 1/3 dealt with matters of religion and theology, and
> 1/3 dealt with matters of alchemy. And of course there was much that
> overlapped all three. Strange how the physics writings are what lingers.
> Alchemy and the philosophy upon which it is based makes for fascinating
> reading.
>
His theories in physics were vindicated and used. The others were
third rate, not good descriptions of anything - just like Einstein's
non- physicist opinions. Interesting historical documents, but not
adding anything new to what we already had/have.
> Ray, have you ever wondered why it seems absurd to talk about progress in
> art i.e. Michaelangelo through to Picasso; and why it seems natural to
> talk about progress in science i.e. Galileo through to Einstein?
>
I thought there was progress in art as well as in science. Both in it's
function and it's technology.
Eva
> * Brian McAndrews,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
