Who really was first?

[moment]

5 hours ago, thelerner said:

They certainly compliment each other.  Was it Einstein or Newton who said, If i've seen further then others, its because I've stood on the shoulders of giants.  **

 

Geniuses get lost in the cliff notes of history, until there genius become applicable or some how capture the public's imagination as opening up new insights.   

 

** it was Newton Letter To Robert Hooke Feb 1676, If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants. 

 

Here's another interesting quote of his on wikiquote-

• I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called a hypothesis, and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.
  • Letter to Robert Hooke (15 February 1676) [5 February 1676 (O.S.)]

 

Thank you for that.  You are singing to the choir.

[dwai]

The problem with the OP’s questions is you are positioning historical narratives against the established status quo. The western narrative is considered historic fact today. So to raise these questions can be perceived as a threat by those who are deeply identified with the western narrative.

 

It really is as much about identity politics as it is about factuality.  

 

[moment]

Agreed, and I believe that some of that factionalism is damaging the Daobums.  That is why I have been positioning myself, in a certain way, with certain members.  A basic Tai Chi principle.  Go soft against hardness.

Edited November 12, 2018 by moment

[wandelaar]

Questions of priority have be decided on the basis of facts, it's not enough to pose as a suppressed minority. If I am getting angry it is because I have had enough of political correctness. Personally I don't care of what nationality the scientists were who are considered as being first. But I do care to get it right. All that moment has to do is to come up with some decent explanation of why our current understanding is incorrect, and I asked him to. But he doesn't do it, and he prefers to play the culturally suppressed underdog. Give us some links or articles to read. Asking suggestive questions doesn't prove anything.

[moment]

2 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

Questions of priority have be decided on the basis of facts, it's not enough to pose as a suppressed minority. If I am getting angry it is because I have had enough of political correctness. Personally I don't care of what nationality the scientists were who are considered as being first. But I do care to get it right. All that moment has to do is to come up with some decent explanation of why our current understanding is incorrect, and I asked him to. But he doesn't do it, and he prefers to play the culturally suppressed underdog. Give us some links or articles to read. Asking suggestive questions doesn't prove anything.

" he prefers to play the culturally suppressed underdog."  LOL, I am a white Anglo-Saxon living in the USA.  I can't begin to tell you how much you just made me laugh.  BTW, what of your understandings do you feel that I think is incorrect?  Please read that last sentence two or three times.

[wandelaar]

I don't care of what nationality you are or where you live. What matters is that you flatly refuse to have a serious discussion, and that you keep playing your silly games. So back on my ignore list you go. Bye bye!

[moment]

2 hours ago, wandelaar said:

I don't care of what nationality you are or where you live. What matters is that you flatly refuse to have a serious discussion, and that you keep playing your silly games. So back on my ignore list you go. Bye bye!

I too am largely against political correctness, I have never posed as a suppressed minority and I asked you " what of your understandings do you feel that I think is incorrect?"  Do you realize how much you project?  

How about this?  Whatever paradigm you have created here concerning this topic and me, you are right, I am wrong.  You win, I lose.  There,  is that better.

[moment]

On 11/11/2018 at 9:08 AM, thelerner said:

They certainly compliment each other.  Was it Einstein or Newton who said, If i've seen further then others, its because I've stood on the shoulders of giants.  **

 

Geniuses get lost in the cliff notes of history, until there genius become applicable or some how capture the public's imagination as opening up new insights.   

 

** it was Newton Letter To Robert Hooke Feb 1676, If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants. 

 

Here's another interesting quote of his on wikiquote-

• I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called a hypothesis, and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.
  • Letter to Robert Hooke (15 February 1676) [5 February 1676 (O.S.)]

 

Just as a note, experimental philosophy of today is very little like that of Isaac Newton's Day.

[rideforever]

Isaac Newton's gravity is not ... the current theory by the way, and the Earth does not orbit the Sun.
Most humans are not intelligent enough to comprehend the highest theories that science has, nor are they really able to understand Newton's theories but they can repeat them in the pub and sound clever ... which is what humans want.   They wish to sound clever.

Probably there have been humans on this planet millions of years ago whilst taking a sh** probably came up with gravitational theories, and some of them were probably as good as Newton's.
But you don't know the names of these people.
Some animals also might have had gravitational theories, perhaps a TRex who bit an pterodactyl in half and watched pieces of the body fall down from his mouth and he thought to himself .... hmm some force is doing that.

What does it mean "discovered" ?
It means a certain group of other apes talk about you, it's fashionable.
Another thing is that just because science has discovered something doesn't mean you discovered anything.   You might live in Manhattan in 2018 but you might have the brain of Fred Flinstone.
People like to talk about "science" because it makes them feel like they know something, like they can ride on the coat-tails of Newton or Einstein ... maybe if you talk about them some of their intelligence will fall upon you.   But ... in reality you know nothing, and you haven't worked for knowledge.
To become intelligent requires study, careful, and sensitive study of small things.   Just like a musician learning an instrument, becoming intelligent is a slow careful process.
But most human apes simply want to find out which science is popular, read a few article on the internet, and talk about it in the pub then people will like them.

Why doesn't the Earth orbit the Sun ?
There is a cascade of answers.
Firstly the Earth orbits the centre of mass of the solar system which is influenced by other planets;
Secondly the Earth is actually the Earth-Moon system that orbits the center of the solar system;
And actually all the bodies of the entire universe are influencing this motion, so you have to include the movement of the entire solar system;
And include relativistic meaning that space time is bending;
And finally you have to include the !quantum" effects meaning that consciousness that is watching it all is influencing it
And so on.
But you won't be very popular in the pub if you say these things.
Better to memorise like a parrot something that sounds impressive, and associate yourself with it.

[Marblehead]

And after all is said and done, I am still the center of my universe.

 

[wandelaar]

@ rideforever

 

Aren't you doing the same thing (bragging about your supposed superior knowledge), that you criticise in others?