1666 (October): that same freemason invents Calculus;
Both Leibniz and Newton "invented" calculus within popular history, but there is evidence that supports that idea as well. I have studied both methods of calculus, and they use completely different approaches and nomenclatures to arrive at the same math. That doesn't mean Newton didn't steal foundational ideas from Leibnitz, but the end result of the two, as used, are quite different.
To me, having used both methods a fair bit, they feel very different, like they were developed, at least in part, by two different people. When two people make their own computer programs to solve the same problem (the exact same i/o functionality), the code will look VERY different. The math of Leibniz and Newton has that same difference of "code."
1687: that freemason then goes on to publish “Principia Mathematica” that becomes the bed-rock of “science” for the next 300+ years.
First of all, Newton's work in mechanics really only was the standard until GR and QM, so more like 200 years, but I won't quibble over 100 years. It would be more appropriate to say it is the bed-rock of engineering (though not all engineering), and I dare say it has been quite useful for that task, so not all bad, even if purposefully incomplete (for which the evidence is insufficient according to that document).
While I didn't read that document entirely, I skimmed it to look for it talking about a physics (and math) connection. They did very little of that, making a lot of suppositions that because Newton was a FM (which I never disputed) the greater body of the work attributed to him was not his, or was purposeful disinformation (which is not true, because it has proven to be very useful information, even if incomplete or purposefully misleading).
I did not see any real evidence that Principia Mathematica or Opticks or any other publication of Newton was not his work. If there was any that I missed in my skimming, please point it out to me. Perhaps most important, if not his, then whose?
The point of attaching lies to a Freemason is that you can use the truths to blend the lies.
School brainwashed them into believing those people invented it when all they did was manipulate it and hide the important bits.
This sounds to me like you (and others) are using the ideas that the FM can't be trusted, and using that lack of trust to extend it to these other people not having actually contributed their contributions. I am asking for evidence that those assertions are true. I am not asking for evidence that the FM are liars. I am not asking for evidence that Newton was a FM. Neither of those points are contested.
I am asking for evidence that Newton did not do the work attributed to Newton.
I guess I am also asking for evidence that the work associated with Newton purposefully hid things.
I have yet to see any evidence that supports those statements.
Here is what I see is the logic:
FM are liars.
Newton was a FM.
Everything Newton did was a lie.
That does NOT logically follow. That is an error in logic. I want evidence that links 1 and 2 with 3. I have seen none so far (not counting Calculus for which I have given an argument to the contrary, and concede it might be partially (but not fully) true).
Both Leibniz and Newton "invented" calculus within popular history, but there is evidence that supports that idea as well. I have studied both methods of calculus, and they use completely different approaches and nomenclatures to arrive at the same math. That doesn't mean Newton didn't steal foundational ideas from Leibnitz, but the end result of the two, as used, are quite different.
To me, having used both methods a fair bit, they feel very different, like they were developed, at least in part, by two different people. When two people make their own computer programs to solve the same problem (the exact same i/o functionality), the code will look VERY different. The math of Leibniz and Newton has that same difference of "code."
First of all, Newton's work in mechanics really only was the standard until GR and QM, so more like 200 years, but I won't quibble over 100 years. It would be more appropriate to say it is the bed-rock of engineering (though not all engineering), and I dare say it has been quite useful for that task, so not all bad, even if purposefully incomplete (for which the evidence is insufficient according to that document).
While I didn't read that document entirely, I skimmed it to look for it talking about a physics (and math) connection. They did very little of that, making a lot of suppositions that because Newton was a FM (which I never disputed) the greater body of the work attributed to him was not his, or was purposeful disinformation (which is not true, because it has proven to be very useful information, even if incomplete or purposefully misleading).
I did not see any real evidence that Principia Mathematica or Opticks or any other publication of Newton was not his work. If there was any that I missed in my skimming, please point it out to me. Perhaps most important, if not his, then whose?
I never said it does. Why aren't you addressing the question i am actually asking.
I asked to be shown the evidence that Isaac Newton was not the original author of the work attributed to him. I am not disputing any other claim here.
Do you not see the flaw in believing any evidence to the contrary if it fits in with a larger belief system? That is confirmation bias.
"Because Newton was a FM, and there is controversy of the origin of calculus, all of his work was fraudulent."
There is no logic there, that is a desire to discredit everything, because of something else unrelated.
This sounds to me like you (and others) are using the ideas that the FM can't be trusted, and using that lack of trust to extend it to these other people not having actually contributed their contributions. I am asking for evidence that those assertions are true. I am not asking for evidence that the FM are liars. I am not asking for evidence that Newton was a FM. Neither of those points are contested.
I am asking for evidence that Newton did not do the work attributed to Newton.
I guess I am also asking for evidence that the work associated with Newton purposefully hid things.
I have yet to see any evidence that supports those statements.
Here is what I see is the logic:
That does NOT logically follow. That is an error in logic. I want evidence that links 1 and 2 with 3. I have seen none so far (not counting Calculus for which I have given an argument to the contrary, and concede it might be partially (but not fully) true).