Newton's Translation of the Emerald Tablet
It is true without lying, certain and most true. That which is Below is like that which is Above and that which is Above is like that which is Below to do the miracles of the Only Thing. And as all things have been and arose from One by the mediation of One, so all things have their birth from this One Thing by adaptation. The Sun is its father; the Moon its mother; the Wind hath carried it in its belly; the Earth is its nurse. The father of all perfection in the whole world is here. Its force or power is entire if it be converted into Earth. Separate the Earth from the Fire, the subtle from the gross, sweetly with great industry. It ascends from the Earth to the Heavens and again it descends to the Earth and receives the force of things superior and inferior. By this means you shall have the glory of the whole world and thereby all obscurity shall fly from you. Its force is above all force, for it vanquishes every subtle thing and penetrates every solid thing. So was the world created. From this are and do come admirable adaptations, whereof the process is here in this. Hence am I called Hermes Trismegistus, having the three parts of the philosophy of the whole world. That which I have said of the operation of the Sun is accomplished and ended.
Of course the ideas I have about Alchemy are really thwarted by comments I may think arise in todays world, by what we may of called rational thinking. Skeptics/self, a many, might say, listen, like any model of perception, how can you have trusted such outdated thinking?
Well imagine then, the quote taken here from 2002 of mine and how is it Newton could have been allowed percpetion in science areas, if he was not given to such model making, to assume a investigation, like use of language might help him see the issues differently?
It would be a Alchemist who would sit with the Crucible to burn the substance within that crucible, to determine the inherent nature contained. Now in holding such a view how is it he could give himself to such a pursuite and to have found such a process of ditilliation to have cleared away the face of that substance to have discovered the deeper aspects of their makeup?
If we have taken this comparison in a metaphorical sense how is it such a alchemist could have looked at his life and found such substances contained within his psyche. That to have burned away the substance of his nature to discover the inherent possibilities of design from such a process?
Without some active force within ones consciousness how could any impetus to substance exploration be taken? Something is needed in which to discern the very nature and structure of such pursuites to chemical analysis to have determine the state such a soul could have occupied.
So a way must be established in which such a person could sift the day to day living and discover the deeper aspects of self. We know that given any experience that reaity has us reflecting on the nature of such experiences, so how is it we change the future but recognize the changes of attitude that must be met those experiences. This could not have been done without some reflective journeys, so what is it we can see, and what is it that determines the meditative qualities to the understanding of those inherent patterns?
I had mention "time variable measure" many times here and in context of "climate" and the "distilliation process" that I see, it was important that the developmental attitude be seen in context of the "ole ways" in order to understand what I am saying.
Opticks is a book written by English physicist Isaac Newton that was released to the public in 1704. It is about optics and the refraction of light, and is considered one of the great works of science in history.
Opticks was Newton's second major book on physical science. Even if he had not made his better-known discoveries concerning gravity and the invention of the calculus, Opticks would have given him the reputation as one of the greatest scientists of his time.
This work represents a major contribution to science, different from—but in some ways rivaling—the Principia. The Opticks is largely a record of experiments and the deductions made from them, covering a wide range of topics in what was later to be known as physical optics. That is, this work is not a geometric discussion of catoptrics or dioptrics, the traditional subjects of reflection of light by mirrors of different shapes and the exploration of how light is "bent" as it passes from one medium, such as air, into another, such as water or glass. Rather, the Opticks is a study of the nature of light and colour and the various phenomena of diffraction, which Newton called the "inflexion" of light.
In this book Newton sets forth in full his experiments, first reported in 1672, on dispersion, or the separation of light into a spectrum of its component colours. He shows how colours arise from selective absorption, reflection, or transmission of the various component parts of the incident light. His experiments on these subjects and on the problems of diffraction (which he never fully mastered) set the subject of optics on a new level.
So in looking back it was a much greater effort then to see "experimental processes" engaged, that would allow us to look at the world in a interesting and viable context of such measures.
How did Newton look at it in context of the Optics? Maybe, as Mendeleev did? Time spend in the lab, much different then 7 A.M. to 7 P.M and quite relaxed really, since thealchemist labs were not just physical things, but also manifested in "how" they could become better human beings.
Time variable measures "exist" and in the "climate category" if no such process exists sociologically, then I am going to give you one. I am going to give you a view here about how gravity is percieved, on what we have taken to mean as spherical and encapsulated, is indeed now bumpy.
You as the "observer" had to be able to "see" differently. It was more then just "the geometry." Dirac was explicit about this. So he said "develope the algebraic equations."
A comparison perhaps to Smolin's analogy of hills and valleys, in relation to the people and their qualification as to the work they must do??
When one is doing mathematical work, there are essentially two different ways of thinking about the subject: the algebraic way, and the geometric way. With the algebraic way, one is all the time writing down equations and following rules of deduction, and interpreting these equations to get more equations. With the geometric way, one is thinking in terms of pictures; pictures which one imagines in space in some way, and one just tries to get a feeling for the relationships between the quantities occurring in those pictures. Now, a good mathematician has to be a master of both ways of those ways of thinking, but even so, he will have a preference for one or the other; I don't think he can avoid it. In my own case, my own preference is especially for the geometrical way.