The best materialists that I low are chemists . Surely then they should be " the Kings of Science"?
And yet, by Plato the Astrologer has been lofted into that position, and the Physicst close behind! Newton it is now known excelled in Philosophy of the classics and went on to develop Astrological principles Mechanical philosophies seized upon by the physicists who later followed and Alchemical experiments of penetrating inquiry. And yet this latter was hid from us by his students and those who would utilise his genius in Astrology, in great Brutain.
On the world stage he was as important an Alchemist as he was an Astrologer, and a champion of the new in his day subject of Mathematics, lately bought by Isaac Barrow the Geometer from Europe and Arabia by perilous travels!
A corpuscle is an Alchemical term, that lies at the join of biology and chemistry as it was in his time . While Leibniz designed his Mrchanics on hard billiard balls, later migrating to elastic ones, Newyon always considered the biological corpuscle seen in blood by microscopes and glorified by Hooke in his Micrografia, as the living embodiment of the powers and forces of his universe. His light, though ballistic , was corpuscular, divided into pieces by God's ordinance, but kind upon the eye so as to transmit colour and light by angle and by impact on the retina. He resisted the deforming of the plenum as unobserved guesswork.
Today we accept that hypothesis because we have bern taught to do so , but physicists still want to retain the corpuscle in the form of a photon. They still want a physically observable " presence" in light.
The wave in the Plenum, an idea by DesCartes, extensively researched by Grimaldi, and modified by Huygens, finally championed by Hooke, only took hold when Young, Fresnel and Arago could demonstrate a suitably rich mathematical model with counter intuitive predictive power. But even today physicists still prefer the photon. It is a material particulate body we can apprehend.
The mystery is really not a mystery at all, for we see wave deformations everywhere around and in us, but we do not want to grasp so insubstantial a thing as a deformation in the plenum! And yet it is not a hypothesis, but a plainly observable phenomenon, or class of phenomena. Helmholtz and Kelvin were surprised to witness the palpable nature of such waves, called vortices . They initiated a wave of theoretical investigations and hypothesising into the extent of this phenomenon, but they could hardly describe it, let alone demonstrate it by reason or it's mathematical bodyguard a mathematical" proof".
Maxwell laboured hard, using Navier and Stokes fluid dynamic differential models to account for electro magnetism, but none of his contemporaries could grasp his strain transmission concept. They wanted a corpuscular vortex!
The Mathematics of the Maxwellians slowly unpicked Maxwells concepts, but did little to advance our understanding of the natural phenomena better described by empirical observations.
Today we like to mislead by covering the hard work of empirical inventors and Mechanics and engineers, by an ill fitting academic fig leaf. What we have and what we know has arrived by the expertise of those materialists who got their hands dirty, but were not eloquent in explaining what they were doing or believed .
The story belongs to the eloquent, the articulate, the myth and fact makers, but the actual doing is due to the empirical artistry of those who interact with materiality, whose expertise is developed by risk taking and quick wit, luck and intuition born of being in the mix.
http://youtu.be/WSYEApgJkh0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSYEApgJkh0
The Light
Mandelbulb3D Gallery
January 29, 2011, 05:06:38 PM
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM