The simultaneous multiple levels he operates on is insane. Observation, logic, metaphysics handled with systematic coherence but without need to formally systematize. High-end cognition dissolves discursive boundaries intuitively. This is what it looks like on the epochal tier.
Modern Science should do better with its descriptive terms.
We really need to push the term "Cosmogony" for what modern scientists who observe the Heavens do. Cosmogony is the study of the motions of observed stellar, planetary, and related bodies, the forces which act upon them, and how they relate to the origins of the universe. Mostly the stuff we can measure. Materialists and Utilitarians should be comfortable here.
"Cosmology" is the study of Cosmogony + the Metaphysical (Religious, Philosophical, et al) that goes into the "ultimate why" of the Universe. This is the messy area where the Bishops of the Church are welcome, since they and their kin pretty much created the study before it was codified as such.
This is probably why Steven Hawking believes he can claim to have discovered a physical principle that disproves the existence of God. A bit of overreach ... quite a bit.
Einstein's theories have always produced contradictions which you can't question, otherwise respectable relativity physics will treat you like a pariah. Does galactic red shift prove the universe is expanding? No, that's just one possible and currently untestable explanation. Heresy!
Astronomy and optics are two of the oldest sciences with observations and (in the case of optics) even experimental measurements. Newton was strongly influenced by alchemy, but I haven't delved deeply into that aspect of his career.
The simultaneous multiple levels he operates on is insane. Observation, logic, metaphysics handled with systematic coherence but without need to formally systematize. High-end cognition dissolves discursive boundaries intuitively. This is what it looks like on the epochal tier.
The majority of Newton's writings were on theology and alchemy, while he is rightfully known for his work on gravity and the laws of motion.
However, he got his insight into the laws of motion from his study of scripture. (Whether he was aware of this or not is a separate question.)
For the Word says that the flesh (the material) profits nothing (is nothing) but is quickened (moved, made alive) by the spirit.
Or, in other words, a body at rest remains at rest until it is acted upon.
The modern obsession with gravity makes the material both the moved and the mover, which is nonsensical.
Modern Science should do better with its descriptive terms.
We really need to push the term "Cosmogony" for what modern scientists who observe the Heavens do. Cosmogony is the study of the motions of observed stellar, planetary, and related bodies, the forces which act upon them, and how they relate to the origins of the universe. Mostly the stuff we can measure. Materialists and Utilitarians should be comfortable here.
"Cosmology" is the study of Cosmogony + the Metaphysical (Religious, Philosophical, et al) that goes into the "ultimate why" of the Universe. This is the messy area where the Bishops of the Church are welcome, since they and their kin pretty much created the study before it was codified as such.
This is probably why Steven Hawking believes he can claim to have discovered a physical principle that disproves the existence of God. A bit of overreach ... quite a bit.
Hawkings is demonstrably wrong due to his adherence to Einstein's fraud, thoroughly exposed by many, but by none so savage as Stephen Crothers: https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2018/09/05/stephen-crothers-the-logical-inconsistency-of-the-special-theory-of-relativity-eu2017/
Crothers was a shot, so here's a chaser: https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2022/12/10/ron-hatch-relativity-in-the-light-of-gps-eu2013/
Einstein's theories have always produced contradictions which you can't question, otherwise respectable relativity physics will treat you like a pariah. Does galactic red shift prove the universe is expanding? No, that's just one possible and currently untestable explanation. Heresy!
Excellent! Fascinating. So is this why Cosmology is considered Queen of the Sciences?
I wonder, as an alchemist, was Newton influenced by Paracelsus?
Astronomy and optics are two of the oldest sciences with observations and (in the case of optics) even experimental measurements. Newton was strongly influenced by alchemy, but I haven't delved deeply into that aspect of his career.