Principia: The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (Annotated), by Isaac Newton

The English-language print edition of the most famous scientific book of all time has been published on Amazon: “Principia: The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (Annotated)”, by Isaac Newton Paperback Edition and Hardcover Edition: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09M5LJZND For digital versions (PDF, EPUB … Read More

The post Principia: The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (Annotated), by Isaac Newton appeared first on Telework.

Problems with translation

According to the school of thought of target-oriented translation, it is necessary to focus on the accuracy of the remarks at the expense of style, when necessary.

 Most freelance translators, telling that they are specialized in just about everything, contradict the term of specialization. It is obvious that their behavior is looking for maximum translation work.

 A well-known difficulty for translators, but there is little awareness outside of them, is the fact that the text to be translated is often already a translation, not necessarily true, and it must, to the extent possible, to try passing it back to the original.

 For a “smart”, sensible translation, you should forget not the knowledge acquired at school or university, but the corrective standards. Some people want a translation with the touch of the source version, while another people feel that in a successful version, we should not be able to guess the original language.

Problems with translation

Criticism of Falsifiability

Thomas Kuhn criticized falsifiability because it characterized “the entire scientific enterprise in terms that apply only to its occasional revolutionary parts,” and it cannot be generalized. In Kuhn’s view, a delimitation criterion must refer to the functioning of normal science. Kuhn objects to Popper’s entire theory and excludes any possibility of rational reconstruction of the development of science. Imre Lakatos said that if a theory is scientific or non-scientific, it can be determined independently of the facts.He proposed a modification of Popper’s criterion, which he called “sophisticated (methodological) falsification”.

 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30572.82568

Criticism of Falsifiability

Evolution and Ethics of Eugenics

Evolution and Ethics of EugenicsAs eugenics is defined, it is very difficult to make a clear distinction between science (medicine, genetic engineering) and eugenics as a included field. And to set a line over which genetic engineering should not go further, according to moral, legal and religious norms. If we accept the help of genetics in finding ways to fight cancer, diabetes, or HIV, we also accept positive eugenics as they are defined now. And if we accept genetic screening, and interventions on the unborn baby, or abortion, we also implicitly accept negative eugenics. In addition, at government level, although eugenics are officially denied, it has been legalized in many countries until recently, and is still accepted and legalized, albeit in subtle forms, even these days. The section Introduction defines the term and classification modes. The section History of Eugenics follows eugenics from the ancient period, the introduction of eugenics by Francis Galton, the practice of eugenics as a state policy in various countries, and the present eugenics (liberal eugenics). I then analyze various issues raised by the Ethics of Liberal Eugenics, and I have developed a special section for the Future of Eugenics, focusing on the human genome project. Finally, in the Conclusions, I express my personal views on the current practice of eugenics.

CONTENTS:

Abstract
Introduction
New Eugenics
The Future of Eugenics
Conclusions
Bibliography

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28662.45120

MultiMedia Publishing EPUB (ISBN 978-606-033-215-2), Kindle (ISBN 978-606-033-214-5), PDF (ISBN 978-606-033-216-9) https://www.telework.ro/en/e-books/evolution-and-ethics-of-eugenics/

Evolution and Ethics of Eugenics

Isaac Newton vs. Robert Hooke on the law of universal gravitation

Isaac Newton vs. Robert Hooke on the law of universal gravitationOne of the most disputed controversy over the priority of scientific discoveries is that of the law of universal gravitation, between Isaac Newton and Robert Hooke. Hooke accused Newton of plagiarism, of taking over his ideas expressed in previous works. In this paper I try to show, on the basis of previous analysis, that both scientists were wrong: Robert Hooke because his theory was basically only ideas that would never have materialized without Isaac Newton’s mathematical support; and the latter was wrong by not recognizing Hooke’s ideas in drawing up the theory of gravity. Moreover, after Hooke’s death and taking over the Royal Society presidency, Newton removed from the institution any trace of the former president Robert Hooke. For this, I detail the accusations and arguments of each of the parts, and how this dispute was perceived by the contemporaries of the two scientists. I finish the paper with the conclusions drawn from the contents.

Keywords: Isaac Newton, Robert Hooke, law of gravity, priority, plagiarism

CONTENTS

Abstract
Introduction
Robert Hooke’s contribution to the law of universal gravitation
Isaac Newton’s contribution to the law of universal gravitation
Robert Hooke’s claim of his priority on the law of universal gravitation
Newton’s defense
The controversy in the opinion of other contemporary scientists
What the supporters of Isaac Newton say
What the supporters of Robert Hooke say
Conclusions
Bibliography

14.01.2019

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19370.26567

MultiMedia Publishing EPUB (ISBN 978-606-033-206-0), Kindle (ISBN 978-606-033-205-3), PDF (ISBN 978-606-033-204-6)  https://www.telework.ro/en/e-books/isaac-newton-vs-robert-hooke-on-the-law-of-universal-gravitation/

Isaac Newton vs. Robert Hooke on the law of universal gravitation

Blockchain Design and Modelling

Blockchain Design and ModellingOntology engineering, along with semantic Web technologies, allow the semantic development and modeling of the operational flow required for blockchain design. The semantic Web, in accordance with W3C, “provides a common framework that allows data to be shared and reused across application, enterprise, and community boundaries” and can be seen as an integrator for various content, applications and information systems. The most widely used blockchain modelling system, by abstract representation, description and definition of structure, processes, information and resources, is the enterprises modelling. Enterprise modelling uses domain ontologies by model representation languages.
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19062.24642

Blockchain Design and Modelling

The distinction between falsification and refutation in the demarcation problem of Karl Popper

The distinction between falsification and refutation in the demarcation problem of Karl PopperDespite the criticism of Karl Popper’s falsifiability theory for the demarcation between science and non-science, mainly pseudo-science, this criterion is still very useful, and perfectly valid after it was perfected by Popper and his followers. Moreover, even in his original version, considered by Lakatos as “dogmatic”, Popper did not assert that this methodology is an absolute demarcation criterion: a single counter-example is not enough to falsify a theory; a theory can legitimately be saved from falsification by introducing an auxiliary hypothesis. Compared to Kuhn’s theory of revolutions, which he himself later dissociated from it transforming it into a theory of “micro-revolutions,” I consider that Popper’s demarcation methodology, along with the subsequent development proposed by him, including the corroboration and the verisimilitude, though imperfect, is not only valid today, but it is still the best demarcation methodology. For argumentation, I used the main works of Popper dealing with this issue, and his main critics and supporters. After a brief presentation of Karl Popper, and an introduction to the demarcation problem and the falsification methodology, I review the main criticisms and the arguments of his supporters, emphasizing the idea that Popper has never put the sign of equality between falsification and rejection. Finally, I present my own conclusions on this issue.

Keywords: Karl Popper, falsifiability, falsification, demarcation problem, pseudo-science

CONTENTS

Abstract
Introduction
1 The demarcation problem
2 Pseudoscience
3 Falsifiability
4 Falsification and refutation
5 Extension of falsifiability
6 Criticism of falsifiability
7 Support of falsifiability
8 The current trend
Conclusions
Bibliography
Notes

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22522.54725

(28.02.2019)

MultiMedia Publishing EPUB (ISBN 978-606-033-209-1), Kindle (ISBN 978-606-033-208-4), PDF (ISBN 978-606-033-207-7) https://www.telework.ro/ro/e-books/the-distinction-between-falsification-and-refutation-in-the-demarcation-problem-of-karl-popper/

The distinction between falsification and refutation in the demarcation problem of Karl Popper

About God in Newton’s correspondence with Richard Bentley and Queries in Opticks

solar systemIn Newton’s correspondence with Richard Bentley, Newton rejected the possibility of remote action, even though he accepted it in the Principia. Practically, Newton’s natural philosophy is indissolubly linked to his conception of God. The knowledge of God seems to be essentially immutable, unlike the laws of nature that can be subjected to refining, revision and rejection procedures. As Newton later states in Opticks, the cause of gravity is an active principle in matter, but this active principle is not an essential aspect of matter, but something that must have been added to matter by God, arguing in the same Query of Opticks even the need for divine intervention.
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16732.44162

About God in Newton’s correspondence with Richard Bentley and Queries in Opticks

Isaac Newton on the action at a distance in gravity: With or without God?

Isaac Newton on the action at a distance in gravity: With or without God?The interpretation of Isaac Newton’s texts has sparked controversy to this day. One of the most heated debates relates to the action between two bodies distant from each other (the gravitational attraction), and to what extent Newton involved God in this case. Practically, most of the papers discuss four types of gravitational attractions in the case of remote bodies: direct distance action as intrinsic property of bodies in epicurean sense; direct remote action divinely mediated by God; remote action mediated by a material ether; or remote action mediated by an immaterial ether. The purpose of this paper is to argue that Newton categorically rejected the types of direct action as the intrinsic property of bodies, and remote action mediated by a material ether. Concerning the other two types of action, direct through divine intervention and mediated through an immaterial environment, Newton has repeatedly stated that he does not know the exact cause of gravity, but in both cases, he has directly involved God, directly in the first case and as the primary cause (the environment/ether being the secondary cause) in immaterial mediated action. But since recognition of direct distance action could have given some credit to those who thought gravity could be essential to matter, and hence to atheism, Newton never openly acknowledged the possibility of such an idea.

Keywords: Isaac Newton, action at a distance, God, gravity, gravity law, gravitation

CONTENTS

Abstract
Introduction
Principia
Correspondence with Richard Bentley
Queries in Opticks
Conclusions
Bibliography

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25823.92320

MultiMedia Publishing https://www.telework.ro/en/e-books/isaac-newton-on-the-action-at-a-distance-in-gravity-with-or-without-god/

Isaac Newton on the action at a distance in gravity: With or without God?

Causal Loops in Time Travel

Causal Loops in Time TravelAbout the possibility of time traveling based on several specialized works, including those of Nicholas J. J. Smith (“Time Travel“), William Grey (”Troubles with Time Travel”), Ulrich Meyer (”Explaining causal loops”), Simon Keller and Michael Nelson (”Presentists should believe in time-travel”), Frank Arntzenius and Tim Maudlin (“Time Travel and Modern Physics“), and David Lewis (“The Paradoxes of Time Travel”). The article begins with an Introduction in which I make a short presentation of the time travel, and continues with a History of the concept of time travel, main physical aspects of time travel, including backward time travel in the past in general relativity and quantum physics, and time travel in the future, then a presentation of the Grandfather paradox that is approached in almost all specialized works, followed by a section dedicated to the Philosophy of time travel, and a section in which I analyze Causal loops for time travel. I finish my work with Conclusions, in which I sustain my personal opinions on the time travel, and the Bibliography on which the work is based.

Keywords: time travel, grandfather paradox, causal loops, temporal paradoxes, causality

CONTENTS

Abstract
Introduction
History of the concept of time travel
Grandfather paradox
The philosophy of time travel
Causal loops
Conclusions
Bibliography
Notes

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17802.31680

MultiMedia Publishing: https://www.telework.ro/en/e-books/causal-loops-in-time-travel/

Causal Loops in Time Travel