: : : : : : Так считали и ВСЕ ПОСЛЕДОВАТЕЛИ ВОРЮГИ Ньютона, который ограбил еще и Гука с законом ОБРАТНЫХ КВАДРАТОВ...
:
: "Я видел дальше потому, что стоял на плечах гигантов. И. Ньютон." Это выражение необычно "для ворюги".
:
: Вот такие они математики, любители поживиться ЗАДАРМА со стола ВЕЛИКИХ эмпирических физических открыий, которые являются краеугольными камнями фундамента новых физических теорий.
:
: Развитие взглядов, которые считаешь правильными, не есть воровство.
-----------------------------------------------------------
(beginning of original message)
Subject: Re: Johannes Kepler
From: "z@z" <z...@z.lol.li>
Date: 2000/01/06
Newsgroups: sci.physics,soc.history,soc.history.science
: = Nathan Urban
:: = Gregory Greenman
:: If you want a person whose work represents a paradigm shift - then
:: I'd have to vote for Isaac Newton.
:
: Though in no way disparaging Newton, I'd have to vote for Galileo, for
: the role he played in helping to develop the importance of experiment
: in scientific (particularly physical) inquiry. He really popularized
: the notion of actually going out and making quantitative measurements
: of how things work and then coming up with models to describe them.
The step from Copernicus (1473-1543) or Galilei (1564-1642) to
Kepler is much bigger than the step from Kepler (1571-1630) to
Newton (1643-1727). When Newton presented his Principia, the paradigm
shift had already taken place. If it had not, then (almost) nobody
would have accepted Newton's work. Newton solved (or only declared to
have solved) the mathematical problem of how universal gravitation
can explain Keplers laws. The concrete notions and laws Newton
created or used in order to do that seem rather questionable to me.
Galilei was an excellent writer and his importance lies primarily
in popularizing the Copernican world view and the experimental
method. But if we compare him with Nicolaus Cusanus (1401-1464),
another scientist advocating the experimental method, then Galilei's
world view seems rather archaic. Whereas Cusanus had advocated an
infinite universe where stars are suns, based on the relativity
principle, Galilei still advocated the epicycle gymnastics of the
old greeks and fought the real paradigm shift (introduction of
modern physical laws into astronomy, postulation of universal
gravity) indroduced by Kepler (Kepler's writings precede those of
Galilei).
Kepler also seems to be the first who completely resolved the
puzzle of how the eye works. He even drew the right psychological
conclusions from the fact that the image in the eye is inverted.
He wrote works on optics and mathematics (on infinitesimals and
on logarithms) which, according to Gerald Holton "have direct appeal
for the modern mind".
Newton (and his disciples) tried to give the impression that
Kepler's laws essentially are just lucky guesses made by someone
who did not even know the mathematical tools necessary for dealing
with them.
I assume that also a lot of others had good reasons to spread the
opinion that "Kepler was a nut".
Here a quotation from 'Thematic origins of scientific thought' by
Gerald Holton, Harvard U.Press, 1973, p.76:
"Galilei introduces Kepler's work into his discussion on the
world systems only to scoff at Kepler's notion that the moon
affects the tides, even though Tycho Brahe's data and Kepler's
work based on them had shown that the Copernican scheme which
Galileo was so ardently upholding did not correspond to the
experimental facts of planetary motion. And Newton manages to
remain strangely silent about Kepler throughout Book I and II
of the PRINCIPIA, by introducing the Third Law anonymously as
"the phenomenon of 3/2th power" and the First and Second Laws
as "the Copernican hypothesis". Kepler' three laws have come
to be treated as essentially empirical rules. How far removed
this archievement was from his original ambition!"
This passage also shows that modern science believing in the primacy
of empirical data and experiments is based either on ignorance or on
lies.
Only after the new concepts have been created and assimilated, it is
possible to interpret empirical data as a proof of (a theory based
on) them.
Wolfgang Gottfried G.
http://members.lol.li/twostone/links.html
(end of original message)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Согласитесь, что поэтому странно как-то ВСЕ ЭТО
отредактировано 26.02.2005 19:08 |
» Альтернативный форум