Fig Newton

[Glenn]

"Alchemists were the first to realize that compounds could be broken down into their constituent parts and then recombined. Newton then applied that to white light, which he deconstructed into constituent colors and then recombined," says Newman. "That's something Newton got from alchemy."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160404-isaac-newton-alchemy-mercury-recipe-chemistry-science/?google_editors_picks=true

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 18:54:14 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

>"Alchemists were the first to realize that compounds could be broken down into their constituent parts and then recombined. Newton then applied that to white light, which he deconstructed into constituent colors and then recombined," says Newman. "That's something Newton got from alchemy."
>
>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160404-isaac-newton-alchemy-mercury-recipe-chemistry-science/?google_editors_picks=true

OK. Point?
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[jillery]

On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 11:57:33 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 18:54:14 -0700, the following appeared in
>talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>>"Alchemists were the first to realize that compounds could be broken down into their constituent parts and then recombined. Newton then applied that to white light, which he deconstructed into constituent colors and then recombined," says Newman. "That's something Newton got from alchemy."
>>
>>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160404-isaac-newton-alchemy-mercury-recipe-chemistry-science/?google_editors_picks=true
>
>OK. Point?

Silly question. It's almost certain he doesn't know what his point
is.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 21:46:40 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Yeah, but hope springs eternal...

[RSNorman]

On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:43:45 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 21:46:40 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 11:57:33 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>
>>>On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 18:54:14 -0700, the following appeared in
>>>talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>>>>"Alchemists were the first to realize that compounds could be broken down into their constituent parts and then recombined. Newton then applied that to white light, which he deconstructed into constituent colors and then recombined," says Newman. "That's something Newton got from alchemy."
>>>>
>>>>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160404-isaac-newton-alchemy-mercury-recipe-chemistry-science/?google_editors_picks=true
>
>>>OK. Point?
>
>>Silly question. It's almost certain he doesn't know what his point
>>is.
>
>Yeah, but hope springs eternal...

It is obvious what the point is. Newton was an alchemist. Therefore
both physics and calculus must be rejected.

[Glenn]

"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:ponagbpcsjaea8bav...@4ax.com...

Like Yockey?

[J. J. Lodder]

But he was also Master of the Mint.
Money can't be wrong,

Jan

[Mike Dworetsky]

One of Newton's tasks was the detection of counterfeiting of gold and silver
coins, and he was very good at this. Money (if counterfeit) can, in fact,
be wrong, and his job was to catch and punish those bad guys. See "Newton
and the Counterfeiter" by Levenson.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:29:49 -0700, the following appeared in

talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

>
>"RSNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:ponagbpcsjaea8bav...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:43:45 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 21:46:40 -0400, the following appeared
>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 11:57:33 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 18:54:14 -0700, the following appeared in
>>>>>talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>>>
>>>>>>"Alchemists were the first to realize that compounds could be broken down into their constituent parts and then recombined. Newton then applied that to white light, which he deconstructed into constituent colors and then recombined," says Newman. "That's something Newton got from alchemy."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160404-isaac-newton-alchemy-mercury-recipe-chemistry-science/?google_editors_picks=true
>>>
>>>>>OK. Point?
>>>
>>>>Silly question. It's almost certain he doesn't know what his point
>>>>is.
>>>
>>>Yeah, but hope springs eternal...
>>
>> It is obvious what the point is. Newton was an alchemist. Therefore
>> both physics and calculus must be rejected.
>>
>Like Yockey?

Nope.

[J. J. Lodder]

Of course not, have you learned nothing here?
Money is a religion, so there is true money and false money.
True money can't lie, and if money lies it is false money.
So no matter what, calculus is right.

> See "Newton
> and the Counterfeiter" by Levenson.

I'm aware of it,

Jan

--
MAMMON, n. The god of the world's leading religion. The chief temple is
in the holy city of New York.

He swore that all other religions were gammon,
And wore out his knees in the worship of Mammon.
Jared Oopf
(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary)

[RSNorman]

My dentist tells me that the calculus that accumulates on my teeth is
not at all right so it gets removed twice a year.

[Oxyaena]

True, Kepler was an astrologer and numerologist, so therefore both
astronomy and arithmetic must be wrong.

Alchemists did invent gunpowder, so you can give them that...

--
"We are all atheists about most gods humanity has ever believed in, some
of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

http://oxyaena.org/

[J. J. Lodder]

Yes, but Kepler also was a shrewd psychologist.
He often guessed the identity of his supposedly anonymous patrons,
and adapted his horoscopes accordingly.
So, while astronomy and arithmetic are wrong,
psychology is right.

> Alchemists did invent gunpowder, so you can give them that...

Like money, gunpowder doesn't lie,

Jan

[Jonathan]

From the article...


"Combine one part Fiery Dragon, some Doves of Diana, and
at least seven Eagles of mercury, and what do you get?
A key precursor to the Philosopher’s stone, according
to a rediscovered manuscript handwritten by legendary
physicist Isaac Newton."


I think the following poem sums up the point of
the article very nicely...



We play at Paste
Till qualified, for Pearl
Then, drop the Paste
And deem ourself a fool

The Shapes -- though -- were similar
And our new Hands
Learned Gem-Tactics
Practicing Sands





s

[Jonathan]

The article states the point clearly in the last
paragraph. And it's a perfectly good point
for anyone interested in science or learning
in general.

But it appears some can't or won't read
past the first sentence and need to be
spoon-fed the article as if they were
a child sitting in a highchair.

Open up, here comes another spoonful
of knowledge - oops - most of if drooled
out the side of your mouth.

Here's the point below, but maybe it if
were placed in a nursery rhyme you might
like it better?

We play at Paste
Till qualified, for Pearl
Then, drop the Paste
And deem ourself a fool

The Shapes -- though -- were similar
And our new Hands
Learned Gem-Tactics
Practicing Sands



s

[RSNorman]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 19:14:45 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

<snip the poem>

I wrote something about Newton for a high school report some 60 years
ago and it included Newton's alchemy infatuation. There is nothing
new. But it continuously gets rediscovered.

Newton was an alchemist. So what?

[jonathan]

My hobby is the science of effects
not things. Have you considered the
effects of the sorry responses to
this article on the poster?

Not one person even attempted to
glean any lesson from the article
or the poster, just use it as an
opportunity to proclaim their
superiority.

Thankfully there were no coconuts handy
for the 'troupe' to start throwing
at him.

That is what offended me, my responses
in this thread have nothing to do
with Newton or alchemy.

Although for a science minded ng to
act like a pack of chimps is an
interesting thing to observe.




Jonathan



If the foolish, call them "flowers"
Need the wiser, tell?
If the Savants "Classify" them
It is just as well!

Those who read the "Revelations"
Must not criticize
Those who read the same Edition
With beclouded Eyes!

Doubtless, we should deem superfluous
Many Sciences,
Not pursued by learned Angels
In scholastic skies!

Low amid that glad Belles lettres
Grant that we may stand,
Stars, amid profound Galaxies --
At that grand "Right hand"!


s

[jillery]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 21:26:28 -0400, jonathan <Wr...@Instead.com>
wrote:

You're right. It's truly pathetic when some willful idiot publicly
proclaims his superiority. One would think that even they would know
better. One can only wonder how anybody with enough functioning brain
to breathe could still be so out of touch with reality.

[jonathan]

Sorry, I meant a group of chimps, and a parrot~

[jonathan]

On 4/10/2016 9:56 PM, jillery wrote:


>

> You're right. It's truly pathetic when some willful idiot publicly
> proclaims his superiority. One would think that even they would know
> better. One can only wonder how anybody with enough functioning brain
> to breathe could still be so out of touch with reality.

Is that the best insult you can do?

Some tips, first you should hit someone
'where they live', destroy what they hold
most cherished and rip it up, but in a way
that says 'just swatting another fly, means
nothing to me'.

But first you should condition the battlefield
by allowing them to believe their 'thing' is
the most important on Earth, get them all
excited that finally someone truly
....understands ME.

Then lower the boom. But it only works when
they are wrong.

As for me, haven't you noticed I post anon?

Calling me stupid or arrogant or whatever is a
waste of time, as being anon means I have no
ego to bruise, you're attacking my alt
not me. If I muck this alt up I can
just change it to another.

Only successfully attacking the ideas I cherish
would do the trick.

But then you won't spend the effort to
understand the ideas, so your flames
have little effect.

I'm trying to remember the last time a debate
was won with a response of "you're full of crap"?

Oh that's right, never.

[jillery]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 19:32:55 -0400, Jonathan <writeI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 4/5/2016 9:46 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 11:57:33 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 18:54:14 -0700, the following appeared in
>>> talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>>>
>>>> "Alchemists were the first to realize that compounds could be broken down into their constituent parts and then recombined. Newton then applied that to white light, which he deconstructed into constituent colors and then recombined," says Newman. "That's something Newton got from alchemy."
>>>>
>>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160404-isaac-newton-alchemy-mercury-recipe-chemistry-science/?google_editors_picks=true
>>>
>>> OK. Point?
>>
>>
>> Silly question. It's almost certain he doesn't know what his point
>> is.
>
>
>
>The article states the point clearly in the last
>paragraph. And it's a perfectly good point
>for anyone interested in science or learning
>in general.

Of course, the relevant question here is not what is the article's
point, but what is Glenn's point in quoting it. Most functional
adults I know are capable of recognizing that distinction. One can
only wonder why you and Glenn are not.

>But it appears some can't or won't read
>past the first sentence and need to be
>spoon-fed the article as if they were
>a child sitting in a highchair.

I agree, that describes you and Glenn to a T. Be sure to wear a bib.

[jillery]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 22:03:50 -0400, jonathan <Wr...@Instead.com>
wrote:

>Sorry, I meant a group of chimps, and a parrot~

Stop looking in a mirror.

[jillery]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 22:33:28 -0400, jonathan <Wr...@Instead.com>
wrote:

>Is that the best insult you can do?

My post is an appropriate response to your post. It neither required
nor deserved my best. HTH but I doubt it.

[Earle Jones27]

On 2016-04-06 18:43:45 +0000, Bob Casanova said:

> On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 21:46:40 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 11:57:33 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>> wrote:
>
>>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 18:54:14 -0700, the following appeared in
>>> talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>>>> "Alchemists were the first to realize that compounds could be broken
>>>> down into their constituent parts and then recombined. Newton then
>>>> applied that to white light, which he deconstructed into constituent
>>>> colors and then recombined," says Newman. "That's something Newton got
>>>> from alchemy."
>>>>
>>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160404-isaac-newton-alchemy-mercury-recipe-chemistry-science/?google_editors_picks=true
>>>>
>
>>> OK. Point?
>
>> Silly question. It's almost certain he doesn't know what his point
>> is.
>
> Yeah, but hope springs eternal...

*
What did Einstein think of Isaac Newton?

"In my opinion, the greatest creative geniuses are Galileo and
Newton, whom I regard in a certain sense as forming a unity. And
in this unity Newton is [the one] who has achieved the most
imposing feat in the realm of science."

--A. Einstein (quoted in Moszkowski, Conversations with Einstein)

earle
*

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 21:44:38 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Earle Jones27
<earle...@comcast.net>:

No surprise. Newton was a genius, and Einstein recognized
that. I'm still waiting for Glenn to state what his point
was, unless it was just in the nature of "Hey, this is
interesting". Which, IMHO, it is.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 19:32:55 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Jonathan
<writeI...@gmail.com>:

>On 4/5/2016 9:46 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 11:57:33 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 18:54:14 -0700, the following appeared in
>>> talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>>>
>>>> "Alchemists were the first to realize that compounds could be broken down into their constituent parts and then recombined. Newton then applied that to white light, which he deconstructed into constituent colors and then recombined," says Newman. "That's something Newton got from alchemy."
>>>>
>>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160404-isaac-newton-alchemy-mercury-recipe-chemistry-science/?google_editors_picks=true
>>>
>>> OK. Point?
>>
>>
>> Silly question. It's almost certain he doesn't know what his point
>> is.
>
>
>
>The article states the point clearly in the last
>paragraph. And it's a perfectly good point
>for anyone interested in science or learning
>in general.

"So it may be fair to say that if it hadn’t been for Newton
the alchemist, we might not have had some of the most famous
discoveries from Newton the scientist."

Since no one would take exception to that, I'm still at a
loss to understand Glenn's point in posting it, unless it
was simply "Hey, this is interesting". Which it is, but it's
not some sort of epiphany.

<snip unwarranted snark>

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 10:47:00 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 19:32:55 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Jonathan
><writeI...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On 4/5/2016 9:46 PM, jillery wrote:
>>> On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 11:57:33 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 18:54:14 -0700, the following appeared in
>>>> talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>>>>
>>>>> "Alchemists were the first to realize that compounds could be broken down into their constituent parts and then recombined. Newton then applied that to white light, which he deconstructed into constituent colors and then recombined," says Newman. "That's something Newton got from alchemy."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160404-isaac-newton-alchemy-mercury-recipe-chemistry-science/?google_editors_picks=true
>>>>
>>>> OK. Point?
>>>
>>>
>>> Silly question. It's almost certain he doesn't know what his point
>>> is.
>>
>>
>>
>>The article states the point clearly in the last
>>paragraph. And it's a perfectly good point
>>for anyone interested in science or learning
>>in general.
>
>"So it may be fair to say that if it hadn’t been for Newton
>the alchemist, we might not have had some of the most famous
>discoveries from Newton the scientist."
>
>Since no one would take exception to that, I'm still at a
>loss to understand Glenn's point in posting it, unless it
>was simply "Hey, this is interesting". Which it is, but it's
>not some sort of epiphany.

So you don't know either? OK.

[Robert Carnegie]

If Newton wasn't a notable mathematician and scientist,
people would not today be talking about Newton the alchemist.
(Or about Newton the Member Of Parliament.)

He was gay, probably. But not as a distinction.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 04:17:20 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com>:

True. But I'm still waiting for jonathan to respond.

>He was gay, probably. But not as a distinction.

Nor as anything relevant.