zt 威尼斯的死灵魂如何败坏科学思想。。。。。Goggle 翻译版。。。

如何威尼斯损坏学死魂灵

ICLC会议，1994年9月

是一个对世界历史发展的癌症 - 癌症oligarchism。 公元1200年至约公元1600年，世界的中心oligarchism力量的重心是威尼斯的寡头政治。 威尼斯的寡头政治走向的时间结束时，由于各种原因决定转移到一个新的行动基地，这竟然是英伦三岛的家庭，财富和特点前景。 其在伦敦的资本一个世界性的新罗马帝国的新方案 - 最终来到被称为英帝国所取代旧的程序是一个世界性的新罗马帝国的首都在威尼斯。

这是癌症的转移，从亚得里亚海的威尼斯党转变为在泰晤士河岸边，而这一直是世界寡头在过去五个世纪的主要项目。 威尼斯人党，无论它是，认为在认识论的战争。 威尼斯人党知道，思想更强大的武器比枪，车队，和炸弹。 为了确保接受自己帝国的想法，威尼斯党试图控制人们的思维方式。 如果你能控制人们的思维方式，说的威尼斯人，你可以控制的方式，他们对事件作出响应，无论这些事件可能是什么。 因此，至关重要的威尼斯人控制哲学，特别是科学，人类假说和创造性的原因权力成为改善自然秩序的力量的地方。 威尼斯人党的科学发现implacably敌对。 自亚里士多德的日子里，他们试图通过使用形式主义和权威性的专业意见拜物教窒息的科学发现。 威尼斯人党还创造了一系列科学欺诈和恶作剧，已无可辩驳的和不容挑战当局的地位提升到数百年。 这些已被用来篡夺了应有的荣誉，由于真正的科学家，威尼斯人人所做的一切都是可能的破坏。

我们可以找出威尼斯派一直负责这些科学和认识论欺诈的最重要的。 他们可以被称为“死魂灵”派，或者“没有灵魂的兄弟”威尼斯的情报。 这是因为他们的派系的开山鼻祖是基于相信，人类有没有灵魂。 他们的派别的信条是人类有没有创造性的精神力量，不能形成假设，并不能进行科学发明的想法。

三组威尼斯GAMEMASTERS

在三组中，我们可以向这些威尼斯的亡灵。 首先是围绕组彼得罗蓬波纳齐，Gasparo黎尼和弗朗切斯科Zorzi，活跃在16世纪的第一部分。 二是有保罗萨尔皮和他的得力助手Fulgenzio Micanzio，伽利略办案人员组。 这是该集团在16世纪初期，开普勒反对。 第三，我们在18世纪早期周围安东尼奥孔蒂和贾马里亚Ortes组。 这是集团创建牛顿神话和现代唯物主义或功利主义和打击戈特弗里德威廉莱布尼茨。 威尼斯gamemasters这三组负责一个很大的蒙昧主义和垃圾，像今天对人类大脑的噩梦重。 这些威尼斯的情报官员的现代世界的无神论者和唯物主义者，反映在后来被称为辩证唯物主义的祖先像伽利略，牛顿，伏尔泰的数字，因为苏联作家的同情。

在16世纪初的第一个分组的领军人物Gasparo黎尼。 在其他地区，我们已经告诉如何黎尼，威尼斯人raisons政变，宗教改革运动，包括让英格兰国王亨利八世，马丁路德，加尔文在日内瓦，意大利加密新教徒GLI已知的故事Spirituali。 与此同时，黎尼是罗马天主教的枢机主教，谁策划天主教反改革的早期阶段。 黎尼依纳爵罗耀拉的个人保护，并建立耶稣会起到决定性的作用。 亚里士多德的平台上，黎尼还召集安理会的遄达。

这是我们所看到的亡灵派的派系明确的谱系与彼得罗蓬波纳齐。 蓬波纳齐从亚里士多德开始，威尼斯人党始终。 亚里士多德断言，没有想到这是不符合混合感觉印象。 这意味着，没有我们的精神生命的一部分，这是不是由物质污染。 对于蓬波纳齐，这证明灵魂不存在，因为它没有无关紧要的物质。 黎尼蓬波纳齐警告不要采取任何进一步的这个问题，但也指出，唯一的一次灵魂的存在是真的一定是时，人已经死了。 黎尼，作为一个实际问题，有没有经验的人的灵魂，而你仍然活着，你可以做到心中有数。

弗朗切斯科Zorzi是本组的特使亨利八世，他成为驻地性别顾问。 Zorzi说明在16世纪初的威尼斯情报人员的典型特征：他的主要职业是黑魔法玫瑰十字会的各种方济会修士。 他是一个魔术师，一个亡灵法师，apparitionist。 克里斯托弗马洛的博士浮士德想想，你有Zorzi的肖像。 不完全是为任何年龄的科学书呆子的示范作用。 随着16世纪到17世纪时，此配置文件开始，到目前严重的缺点和局限性。

萨尔皮及GALILEO

直到大约1600，威尼斯党对科学的姿态或多或少开放的敌意，有利于黑魔法。 但在17世纪初，围绕萨尔皮组成功地改变他们的公众形象，从科学的敌人，是最先进和尖端科学的化身。 在此之后的几个世纪，威尼斯人将科学界内接管。 他们声称代表的科学价值的最高体现。 通过这种方式，他们可以死手的形式主义和权力拜物教制度化，从而扼杀的过程中发现。

威尼斯情报负责人，这可能是保罗萨尔皮。 萨尔皮和他的朋友Fulgenzio Micanzio Servite僧侣。 萨尔皮Ridotti Morosini酒店，一个重要的一天，威尼斯沙龙讨论Morosini酒店大运河上的家庭宫殿举行的一部分。 Morosini酒店Gasparo黎尼直接的思想继承人。 Morosini酒店发廊集中在一个科学的讨论，并成为威尼斯的寡头政治，所谓的乔瓦尼，成为1582强大的后青春派的核心。 乔瓦尼的青睐与荷兰，英国，法国与奥地利和西班牙Hapsburgs和教皇发生冲突的合作的政策。 Vecchi，老歌，西班牙和罗马教皇的一面，也相当广泛的威尼斯的网络服务。

我们已经向在其他地点，如何萨尔皮组织和发动了三十年的战争，在中欧最大von Thurn和出租车，基督教冯安哈尔特，克里斯托夫冯多纳和选民帕拉丁冯检基，所谓的冬季国王像使用代理。 在这个意义上说，保罗萨尔皮亲自消灭整个欧洲的人口约三分之一，德国及周边地区的人口约一半。 萨尔皮也引起了法国，当亨利反对萨尔皮的设计和暴露了他作为一个无神论者的暗杀国王亨利四世。 保罗萨尔皮，我们可以看到，罗素是一个值得前身。

但在他自己的时间萨尔皮被认为是一位杰出的数学家。 一个当代他写道：“... ...我可以说对他没有任何夸张，在欧洲没有一个人，他擅长于[数学]科学知识。” 这是伽利略举行萨尔皮查看。

包括在1590年代萨尔皮Ridotto Morosini酒店的同伴影响力的神秘的布鲁诺。 从1592年开始，也有在附近的帕多瓦大学的数学教授：伽利略，一个土生土长的佛罗伦萨。 伽利略在帕多瓦教数学从1592年到1610年，和威尼斯领土上逗留期间，他成了名人。 伽利略是一个萨尔皮支付代理，萨尔皮萨尔皮的得力助手Micanzio的死亡，后。 有一个萨尔皮和伽利略的科学学科之间的对应关系，包括磁性，这是萨尔皮的最爱，因为他发现，隐匿。 伽利略落体萨尔皮，谁热情，伽利略已经诞生，解决问题的议案提出他的一些想法。

伽利略的名气采购时，他用一个小望远镜观测木星的卫星，土星环，和金星的阶段。 他在他的作文星空信使，立即让他在欧洲首屈一指的科学家，从而为威尼斯党的影响力非常重要的代理这些目击报告。 这整个望远镜操作已制定了保​​罗萨尔皮。

已建成的第一个望远镜达芬奇约一百年前伽利略。 苏珊威尔士注意研究多梅尼科Argentieri呼吁莱昂纳多的光学手稿，这表明，莱昂纳多的望远镜已经在其他的一端的凸透镜和凹透镜。 它的放大率是相当薄弱的，但它是一个望远镜。 有望远镜于1590年在意大利的报告。 到1608年，望远镜开始在荷兰，和伽利略说，他鼓励他们的报告，在1609年建立自己的望远镜。

萨尔皮这些事件的版本是更准确的。 他写道：1610年3月16日，望远镜已在荷兰发现的前两年，因此，在春天1608。 萨尔皮写道，“一旦这个被发现的，”“我们的帕多瓦数学家[伽利略]和我们的其他人，谁是这些艺术无知一些天体上开始使用的望远镜，调整和提炼为目的.. ... ...“ 注意：伽利略“和一些其他人。” 它会出现的意见不是从帕多瓦，但保罗萨尔皮Servite修道院在威尼斯。 萨尔皮写伽利略“我们​​的数学家”的说法，他“经常与他讨论时间”有关的望远镜观测的结果，并没有需要读什么伽利略对他们的书面。

在1611年，波兰的游客到威尼斯，雷伊，写伽利略并没有真正的望远镜的发明者，但“顾问，作者，导演”望远镜项目已被父亲保罗萨尔皮，“谁被认为是这里最伟大的数学家。“

1597年，开普勒已经派出了他的新著，Mysterium Cosmographicum，伽利略的副本。 这是工作中，开普勒了解行星绕太阳轨道的谐波订购的基础上提出的柏拉图固体。 伽利略于是致信开普勒，解释，他也，是哥白尼的日心说观点的追随者，但他“不敢”来查看这是因为恐惧，而宁愿坐在全业务由于气候的意见。 开普勒写回敦促伽利略有信心，要为真理而斗争，主动找到出版商在德国，如果意大利的气候太压迫。 伽利略并没有做到这一点，并拒绝详细评论​​开普勒的书。 根据开普勒的传记作者最大卡斯帕，在接下来的几年，伽利略使用材料开普勒在他的演讲，但没有给予开普勒信贷。

开普勒和伽利略超过30年，在频繁的接触。 开普勒仁慈的利益 - 与微妙的论战 - 关于伽利略的出版作品。 但是，伽利略从来没有评论系统开普勒定律。 1609年，开普勒出版了他的Astronomia新星，阐述了他的第一和第二的行星运动规律 - 行星在太阳是一个焦点的椭圆移动，行星扫出在相等的时间在自己和太阳作为之间的平等地区他们围绕。 的两个伟大的世界在1533年出版系统，伽利略的对话，开普勒是难以提及，而对哥白尼的讨论中心，他的行星绕太阳完美的圆的轨道，会计没有希望的的观察立场行星。 最后，人物之一说，他是在开普勒惊讶被如此“薄利多销”的属性潮汐月球的吸引力。

期间的教皇乌尔班八世巴贝里尼教皇的第一年，伽利略是半官方的科学家为教皇。 但在1631年，德国瑞典古斯塔夫阿道夫新教军队作战时，通过它的方式，达到了阿尔卑斯山，似乎已作好准备，以扫上罗马市第八突然转向从法国亲一个亲西班牙的政策。 西班牙的崛起是由多米尼加与耶稣会的支持下进行的审判伽利略的背景下。 几年前，萨尔皮曾预测，如果伽利略前往罗马，耶稣会士及其他有可能“转... ...到一个神学问题的物理学和天文学的问题，”谴责“逐出教会的异端”伽利略和迫使他“宣布放弃他的所有关于这一问题的的意见”。 1616萨尔皮似乎很清楚知道会发生什么，超过15年后，在他自己死后，。 很明显，这里的场景勾勒相当于萨尔皮自己的长远计划。 伽利略的审判是最大的公共关系的所有时间的成功经验之一。 对伽利略在罗马的Santa Maria SOPRA密涅瓦多米尼加进行镇压的姿态，建立了方程，伽利略=现代实验科学，反对愚昧蒙昧主义困境。 这个等式已经站以来，这一悲惨的误解了人类思想的可怕后果。 迷失在有关伽利略的骚动，开普勒已经由侦查谴责更比十年前的有关事实。

萨尔皮的哲学和科学著作没有公布，直到二战结束后。 这些Pensieri，或思考，和ARTE DI本Pensare，艺术思维好。 萨尔皮的成就，是为威尼斯的情报，以抽象的亚里士多德的方法，从亚里士多德在这个或那个特定问题表示意见的质量。 这样，意义肯定可以作为科学实验的基础上，保持和亚里士多德的令人难堪的过时的某些自然现象的看法可以被抛弃。 这允许威尼斯人保留必要的亚里士多德，而攻击亚里士多德或巡回学校的指数，如Collegio罗马耶稣会士，。 萨尔皮这些著作没有被翻译，但他们是弗朗西斯培根爵士写的一切的基础。 培根霍布斯家政萨尔皮和Micanzio密切接触。 萨尔皮也可以在洛克发现，花了近1000页，写什么萨尔皮30。

在艺术思维好，萨尔皮从感知觉和意识的确定性。 他建议，在我们的感官仪器外部对象的印象，从这些对象区别开来。 尤其是他点口味，气味和声音，他认为是一个我们的神经系统的问题，外部现实。 在不同类别的想法的数量，规模和时间，这是客观。 在相同的手稿，萨尔皮列出的错误思想的不朽的灵魂。 萨尔皮重复，没有感觉，因为没有知识，灵魂与身体的死亡蓬波纳齐参数。 再次，威尼斯的亡灵派的商标。

伽利略的认识论直接来自萨尔皮。 我们可以看到，在伽利略的1623征文金正日Saggiatore，Assayer。 伽利略，颜色，味道，声音，气味，是单纯的文字。 他们只存在于我们的身体。 伽利略使得这些著名的比较，以发痒。 如果你刷一个大理石雕像的脚或腋窝的鞋底，一地鸡毛，你会不会产生痒痛。 但是如果你这样做一个人，你会导致发痒的感觉。 所以，伽利略说，它是时间来摆脱的耳朵，舌头，和鼻子，形状，数字和议案去，而且从来没有气味，味道和声音。 由此看来，他的收益迅速，其中一个原子的还原理论热效果“火热minims”火成岩原子解释。 伽利略的认识论是萨尔皮相同。 这是伽利略意味着什么时，他否认亚里士多德说，真理是写在书的性质，并写在数学字符。 伽利略是一个还原。

萨尔皮在1623年去世，成为Servite和尚Fulgenzio Micanzio和伽利略计划的情况下人员。 Micanzio后伽利略受到谴责，想起了20年前他从萨尔皮收到转让伽利略：写论文的议案。 的方式，Micanzio，我为你258磅。 后来，Micanzio将促使伽利略的养老金每年60 scudi从威尼斯国家库房。

伽利略回应Micanzio的订单与上两个新的科学，力学和局部运动的1638话语。 由于伽利略被宗教裁判所谴责，他不能发表任何地方，教皇权威强劲。 Micanzio因此安排为伽利略的书印Elsevir由荷兰莱顿按。

在1634年，Micanzio写道伽利略，他已经被谈论科学和哲学方面的专家 - 被称为一个在一天的说法演奏家 - 谁曾评论说，虽然他并没有否认伽利略的科学能力，“你带来的东西是并不新鲜，但已经在开普勒。“ 的确如此。 伽利略写了回信，正确的答案，这演奏家是，伽利略和开普勒虽然有时可能似乎都同意对某些天文现象，“我的哲思的方式是从他的不同。” （1634年11月19日）。

在1640年写的信件，伽利略扔进一步对自己的科学方法。 伽利略抱怨说，他已被人误解：“对所有在世界上的原因，我指责impugning巡回学说，而我信奉和一定的观察更虔诚的巡回上午， - 或者，把它更好，亚里士多德 - 比许多教义其他...." （1640）8月24日，。 伽利略声称，他曾试图研究的现象：“在所有的自然效果保证我对他们的存在，他们的”坐“[如果]，而我获得没有从他们的如何，他们的”quomodo“（6月23日， 1640），有些可能会尝试以解雇作为一个伽利略的前景的打击力度，其中他是仍然是受害者造成的失真这些招生，但我会提交这在真正的伽利略所说。伽利略是试图表达这里的相同事情艾萨克牛顿意味着与他的臭名昭著的“假设非fingo”我不杜撰假说]，这给我们带来牛顿。

牛顿：一个邪教朴仁国

威尼斯的科学腐败的下一阶段取决于由艾萨克牛顿的名字上一个相当模糊的剑桥唐。 对于寡头政治，牛顿和伽利略是自亚里士多德自己派最有影响力的思想家的荣誉只有两个竞争者。 英国寡头称赞牛顿作为现代科学的奠基人。 但是，在同一时间，他们已无法保持秘密的事实，牛顿是一个呓语的非理性主义，邪教疯子。 在寡头，这是主的英国经济学家约翰梅纳德凯恩斯和一位同行的剑桥毕业生开始打开黑匣子牛顿的真实性格。 是牛顿第一和最大的现代科学家，医生冷和untinctured原因？ 没有，凯恩斯说，牛顿不是理性时代的第一。 他是最后的魔术师，巴比伦人和苏美尔人的最后，最后美妙的儿童贤士能做到真诚和适当的敬意。 凯恩斯基于他在一个盒子的内容。 在框中是什么？ 盒子中的牛顿收拾行装，当他离开伦敦剑桥1696年，结束了他的剑桥生涯，并在伦敦开始他的新生活，为会员和英国皇家学会，薄荷主任会长，新的英国居民法师的论文帝国。

箱内共约1.2万字的手稿和文件。 牛顿去世后，主教霍斯利被要求检查框，出版，但是当他看到的内容，他退缩了，惊恐，砰的一声盖子。 一个世纪过去了。 牛顿的19世纪的传记作者大卫布鲁斯特爵士，看着成箱。 他决定以节省打印几的选择牛顿的声誉，但他伪造与直线fibbing的其余部分，正如凯恩斯说。 框成为著名的朴茨茅斯论文。 在1888年剑桥几个数学论文。 1936年，目前的所有者，利明顿勋爵，急需用钱，所以他休息拍卖。 凯恩斯买了很多，他可以，但分散从耶路撒冷到美国的其他文件。

正如凯恩斯所指出的，牛顿是一个多疑，偏执，不稳定的个性。 牛顿在1692年，神经衰弱和未曾收复前他的心境一致性。 佩皮斯和洛克认为，他已经变得精神错乱。 牛顿出现，从他的分项略“加加”。 正如凯恩斯强调，牛顿“是完全从女性的超然，”虽然他有一些接近的年轻男性朋友。 他曾愤怒地指责洛克试图卷入他与妇女。

在过去的几十年里，盒的盖子已部分由牛顿神话的饲养者的亲英派的学者和勉强打开。 我们可以看到箱内？

首先，牛顿的阿里安异端的支持者。 他否认三位一体的攻击，因此也Filioque和非凡之意象的概念。 凯恩斯认为，牛顿是“一个犹太教一神论学校的迈蒙尼德，”这表明他是一个秘术。 牛顿，崇拜基督作为神的偶像崇拜和弥天大罪。 即使在英国的教会，牛顿保持这些意见的秘密，否则将面临排斥。

Alchemy和绿色狮子

牛顿的实际利率是不是数学或天文学。 这是炼金术。 他在三一学院的实验室，剑桥是装出来的炼金术。 在这里，他的朋友说，从来没有在6个星期的春季和6周的秋季火灾。 炼金术是什么？ 是什么样的研究牛顿做呢？ 他的消息来源，如埃利亚斯Ashmole“Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum”玫瑰十字会的领导者，英国的投机性共济的书籍。 牛顿国有Ashmole所有六重四开卷。

炼金术士的目标是追求神话般的哲学家的石头，这将使方士蜕变成金铅和其他基本金属。 炼金术士希望哲学家的石头会给予他们其他的神通，如复兴和永恒的青春，。

炼金术也参与了行星的占星术的影响和化学品的行为之间的关系。 处理这些问题的一个论文是“变态的行星。” 由于木星的行星之间的优先级，它也占据了炼金术试剂中的特权地位。 牛顿表示，这本书的书名页的正面登基的图片，他的木星提请。

牛顿的结论是什么？ 让他为自己代言。“关于镁的绿色狮子，这就是所谓的普罗米修斯和变色龙也阴阳，和处女青翠的地球在太阳从来没有投它的光线，虽然他是其父亲和其母亲的月亮常见的汞，这使得地球肥沃的天堂的露水，明智的硝。Instructio arbore索拉里，这是阴沉的石头。“ 这似乎已在17世纪70年代写的。 一个从1690s的样品：“现在这个绿色地球B.情人节的精美绿色金星和性病翡翠绿色和绿色地球斯奈德斯他喂他lunary水星绿夫人凭借戴安娜带来儿童和仰里普利绿色里昂的血液，其中绘制工作的开始。“

在1680s牛顿还组成一系列的炼丹术，第六届如下的警句：“年轻的新王出生在与牛奶的更大的腐烂的问题，从第二个工作destellation绘制热营养有了这个牛奶他必须吸胀七次充分，然后腐烂他dococted的白色和红色，并传递给红色，他必须是一个红色的小油吸胀，巩固solary性质和红色的石头更变化无常的，这可能被称为第三次工作，首先没有比腐烂的进一步，第二次去的白色和红色第三。“ （西部荒野，第292，293，358）。

如此这般多万字，与绿色的狮子，Androgynes，男性和女性的原则，潘和Osiris。 诚然，它已经表示，牛顿探测，因为它从来没有被探测之前或期间的时间，他据说是他写的数学原理，因为所有的，炼金术文献。 此外，他提请所罗门王圣殿的计划，以及后来的圣经事件透视切出几百年历史年表。

牛顿的“发现”

牛顿应该发现？ 乍听起来，事实证明，他没有发现。 例如，牛顿的万有引力定律，力的两个点群众的吸引力是平等的，通过它们之间的距离的平方除以两个群众的产品，次不断的指控法律。 这是牛顿所谓的平方反比定律。 长期以来，人们一直知道这是不是一个真正的新发现，而是由一些从开普勒第三定律的修修补补派生。 开普勒建立了，从今年的平方除以太阳的行星的距离的立方总是等于一个常数。 补充惠更斯的离心加速度的公式，并做一些替换，你可以得到平方反比关系。 这个问题解决在附录中的基督教经济科学[林顿拉鲁什，华盛顿特区：席勒研究所，1991年]。 但牛顿的支持者仍然声称，牛顿解释重力。

通过开放的盒子的盖子，我们发现，牛顿自己交代，在一份未公开的说明，他的伟大成就，是从开普勒cribbed。 牛顿写道：“... ...我开始思考的重心延伸到月球ORB（已发现了如何估计的力量，按一个地球旋转的球体表面）从开普勒的规则定期倍行星宝珠中心的距离的sesquialterate比例，我推测，部队必须保持他们的宝珠行星的距离的平方，他们围绕中心相互...." （西部荒野，143页）。 牛顿“惠更斯最近出版的离心力的公式代入开普勒第三定律的逆平方米的关系”（西部荒野，402）抵达。 胡克和克里斯托弗Wren先生声称，大约在同一时间做同样的事情。

爱牛顿的炼金术和魔法表面作为他的观点的基础上，包括在他的科学著作。 在他的“Opticks，”他问，“有没有一定的权力机构，美德，或力量小的颗粒，他们在距离法....如何执行这些景点可能，我没有在这里考虑。我呼吁的吸引力可能冲动被执行，或一些其他手段对我不知道。“ 这是牛顿的引力概念的距离，莱布尼茨正确地嘲笑黑魔法的行动。 牛顿的系统是无法描述超出两个机构的互动任何的，应该有伤口如果没有定期重新伤口像钟表熵宇宙。 牛顿还写了一个电动的精神，和他所谓的乙醚一个神秘的介质。 此基础上，炼金术是不明确的。

再有就是牛顿发明微积分的故事。 牛顿从来没有在他的整个生活在现实中，描述了演算。 他从未有过一个。 他炮制了一个所谓的fluxions和无穷级数理论。 这不是一个演算，并很快被遗忘沉没时，它是牛顿去世9年后出版。 到1710年，欧洲科学家一直在努力与莱布尼茨的演算几十年。 这是牛顿和英国皇家学会推出他们的竞选主张，牛顿实际上已发明了微积分在1671年大约在那个时候，虽然一些奇怪的原因，他从来没有说过它在30年期间的任何公共打印。 这是补充通过的第二项指控，，莱布尼兹是抄袭，复制后两者之间的一些谈话和交换信件的17世纪70年代期间他从牛顿的微积分。 这些对莱布尼茨的污蔑写牛顿，并把1715年作为英国皇家学会的官方定论。 同一行搅动下流破解牛顿的作家。 但在欧洲大陆的科学家，尤其是决定性的法国科学院，不相信牛顿的案件。 牛顿的大陆上的声誉是最好是温和的，当然也不崇高。 在英国，是对牛顿的阻力，用20-25％的反牛顿在皇家学会本身的感觉的硬核。 那么如何科学家牛顿神话起源？

牛顿：骗子的神化

牛顿的神化被安排由安东尼奥孔蒂的威尼斯，我们的亡灵派的第三个分组的中心。 为了创造伟大的现代科学家牛顿的神话，孔蒂不得不这样做可能被认为不可能在时间：创建一个在法国的亲英的党。 孔蒂成功，代表作为启蒙运动的创始人，否则法国Anglophiles网络的理解。 退化，足以成为Anglophiles这些法国人也将被降级足以成为Newtonians，反之亦然。 英国没有网络，可以使这种情况发生在巴黎，但威尼斯人没有，最近感谢蒙田和皮埃尔培尔这些数字的工作。 英国决不可能完成，威尼斯人完成盎格鲁 - 威尼斯党的更大的辉煌。

在1677年出生在帕多瓦，孔蒂是一个贵族，威尼斯贵族的成员。 He was a defrocked priest who had joined the Oratorian order, but then left it to pursue literary and scientific interests, including Galileo and Descartes. Conti was still an abbot. In 1713, Conti arrived in Paris. This was at the time of the Peace of Utrecht, the end of the long and very bitter War of the Spanish Succession, in which the British, the Dutch, and their allies had invaded, defeated, and weakened the France of Jean-Baptiste Colbert. Louis XIV had only two more years to live, after which the throne would go to a regent of the House of Orleans.

In Paris, Conti built up a network centering on the philosopher Nicholas de Malebranche. He also worked closely with Bernard Le Bovier de Fontenelle, the permanent secretary of the French Academy of Sciences, still the premier research center in Europe. Conti saw immediately that Fontenelle was a follower of Giordano Bruno of the Ridotto Morosini. Conti become a celebrity in Paris, but he soon announced that he was growing tired to Descartes, the dominant figure on the French intellectual scene. Conti began telling the Paris salons that he was turning more and more to Newton and Leibniz. He began to call attention to the polemic between Newton and Leibniz. What a shame that these two eminent scientists were fighting each other! Perhaps these two outlooks could be reconciled. That would take a tactful mediator, an experienced man of the world. Since the English and the German scientists were at war, who better than an Italian, a Venetian, to come forward as mediator? Perhaps such a subtle Venetian could find a way to settle this nasty dispute about the calculus and propose a compromise platform for physics.

A solar eclipse was in the offing, and Conti organized a group of French astronomers to go to London and observe it - probably the London fog would be helpful. With Conti's help these Frenchmen would be turned, made members of the Royal Society, and when they got back to France, they would become the first French Anglophiles of the eighteenth century French Enlightenment. Before leaving Paris, Conti, with classical Venetian duplicity, wrote a very friendly letter to Leibniz, introducing himself as a supporter of Leibniz's philosophy. Conti claimed that he was going to London as a supporter of Leibniz, who would defend his cause in London just as he had done in Paris. By 1715, Leibniz's political perspectives were very grim, since his patroness, Sophie of Hanover, had died in May 1714. Leibniz was not going to become prime minister of England, because the new British king was Georg Ludwig of Hanover, King George I.

When Conti got to London, he began to act as a diabolical agent provocateur. Turning on his magnetism, he charmed Newton. Newton was impressed by his guest and began to let his hair down. Conti told Newton that he had been trained as a Cartesian. "I was myself, when young, a Cartesian," said the sage wistfully, and then added that Cartesian philosophy was nothing but a "tissue of hypotheses," and of course Newton would never tolerate hypotheses. Newton confessed that he had understood nothing of his first astronomy book, after which he tried a trigonometry book with equal failure. But he could understand Descartes very well. With the ground thus prepared, Conti was soon a regular dinner guest at Newton's house. He seems to have dined with Newton on the average three evenings per week. Conti also had extensive contacts with Edmond Halley, with Newton's anti-Trinitarian parish priest Samuel Clarke, and other self-styled scientists. Conti also became friendly with Princess Caroline, the Princess of Wales, who had been an ally of Leibniz. Conti became very popular at the British court, and by November 1715 he was inducted by Newton as a member of the Royal Society.

Conti understood that Newton, kook that he was, represented the ideal cult figure for a new obscurantist concoction of deductive- inductive pseudo mathematical formalism masquerading as science. Thanks to the Venetians, Italy had Galileo, and France had Descartes. Conti might have considered concocting a pseudo scientific ideology for the English based on Descartes, but that clearly would not do, since Venice desired to use England above all as a tool to tear down France with endless wars. Venice needed an English Galileo, and Conti provided the intrigue and the public relations needed to produce one, in a way not so different from Paolo Sarpi a century before.

THE LEIBNIZ-NEWTON CONTEST

Conti received a letter from Leibniz repeating that Newton had never mastered the calculus, and attacking Newton for his occult notion of gravitation, his insistence on the existence of atoms and the void, his inductive method. Whenever Conti got a letter from Leibniz, he would show it to Newton, to stoke the fires of Newton's obsessive rage to destroy Leibniz. During this time, Newton's friend Samuel Clarke began an exchange of letters with Leibniz about these and related issues. (Voltaire later remarked of Clarke that he would have made an ideal Archbishop of Canterbury if only he had been a Christian.) Leibniz wrote that natural religion itself was decaying in England, where many believe human souls to be material, and others view God as a corporeal being. Newton said that space is an organ, which God uses to perceive things. Newton and his followers also had a very odd opinion concerning the work of God. According to their doctrine, "God Almighty wants to wind up his watch from time to time; otherwise, it would cease to move. He had not, it seems, sufficient foresight to make it a perpetual motion." This gave rise to the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence, in which we can also see the hand of Conti. By now, the chameleon Conti was a total partisan of Newton's line of atoms and the void, the axioms of Newtonian absolute space. "If there were no void," wrote Conti, "all bodies would be equally heavy and the comets could not pass through heavenly spaces.... M. Leibniz has written his speech to Princess [Caroline], and he presents the world not as it is, but as it could be." (Badaloni, Antonio Conti, 63).

Newton tried to get the ambassadors of the London diplomatic corps to review his old manuscripts and letters, hoping they would endorse the finding of the Royal Society that Leibniz had plagiarized his calculus. Leibniz had pointed out that the Royal Society had stacked the evidence. Conti used this matter to turn George I more and more against Leibniz. Conti organized the Baron von Kilmansegge, the Hanoverian minister and husband of George I's mistress, to take the position that the review of documents would not be enough; the only way to decide the Leibniz-Newton controversy was through a direct exchange of letters between the two. King George agreed with this. Conti encouraged Newton to make a full reply to Leibniz, so that both letters could be shown to the king. When he heard Newton's version, the king indicated that Newton's facts would be hard for Leibniz to answer.

Conti tried to convince Leibniz to accept the 1715 verdict of the Royal Society which had given credit for the calculus to Newton. In return, to sweeten this galling proposal, Conti generously conceded that Leibniz's calculus was easier to use and more widely accepted. By now Leibniz was well aware that he was dealing with an enemy operative, but Leibniz died on Nov. 4, 1716, a few days before Conti arrived in Hanover to meet him. Newton received word of the death of his great antagonist through a letter from Conti.

CONTI'S DEPLOYMENT TO FRANCE

Thanks to Conti's intervention as agent provocateur, Newton had received immense publicity and had become a kind of succes de scandale. The direct exchange mandated by George I suggested to some an equivalence of Leibniz and Newton. But now Conti's most important work was just beginning. Leibniz was still held in high regard in all of continental Europe, and the power of France was still immense. Conti and the Venetians wished to destroy both. In the Leibniz-Newton contest, Conti had observed that while the English sided with Newton and the Germans with Leibniz, the French, Italians, Dutch, and other continentals wavered, but still had great sympathy for Leibniz. These powers would be the decisive swing factors in the epistemological war. In particular, the attitude which prevailed in France, the greatest European power, would be decisive. Conti now sought to deliver above all France, plus Italy, into the Newtonian camp.

Conti was in London between 1715 and 1718. His mission to France lasted from 1718 through 1726. Its result will be called the French Enlightenment, L'Age des Lumieres. The first components activated by Conti for the new Newtonian party in France were the school and followers of Malebranche, who died in 1715. The Malebranchistes first accepted Newton's Opticks, and claimed to have duplicated Newton's experiments, something no Frenchman had done until this time. Here Conti was mobilizing the Malebranche network he had assembled before going to London. Conti used his friendship with Fontenelle, the secretary of the French Academy of Sciences, to secure his benevolent neutrality regarding Newton. Conti's other friends included Mairan, Reaumur, Freret, and Desmolets.

During the late teens and '20s in Paris, an important salon met at the Hotel de Rohan, the residence of one of the greatest families of the French nobility. This family was aligned with Venice; later, we will find the Cardinal-Prince de Rohan as the sponsor of the Venetian agent Count Cagliostro. The librarian at the Hotel de Rohan was a certain Abbe Oliva. Oliva presided over a Venetian-style conversazione attended by Conti, his Parisian friends, and numerous Italians. This was already a circle of freethinkers and libertines.

In retrospect, the best known of the participants was Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de la Brede et de Montesquieu. Montesquieu, before Voltaire, Rousseau, and the Encyclopedia, was the first important figure of the French Enlightenment - more respectable than Voltaire and Rousseau - and the leading theoretician of political institutions. Conti met Montesquieu at the Hotel de Rohan, and at another salon, the Club de l'Entresol. Later, when Conti had returned to Venice, Montesquieu came to visit him there, staying a month. Montesquieu was an agent for Conti.

Montesquieu's major work is The Spirit of the Laws, published in 1748. This is a work of decidedly Venetian flavor, with republic, monarchy, and despotism as the three forms of government, and a separation of powers doctrine. Montesquieu appears to have taken many of his ideas from Conti, who wrote a profile of France called "Historical and Political Discourse on the State of France between 1700 and 1730." In his treatise, Montesquieu points out that France has an independent judiciary, the parlements, which became a main focus for Anglo-Venetian destabilization efforts going toward the French Revolution.

Montesquieu raises the theme of Anglophilia, praising Britain's allegedly constitutional monarchy as the ideal form. With this, the pro-British bent of Conti's Enlightenment philosophes is established. The ground is being prepared for Newton.

ANOTHER CONTI AGENT: VOLTAIRE

One of Conti's other friends from the Hotel de Rohan was a Jesuit called Tournemine, who was also a high school teacher. One of his most incorrigible pupils had been a libertine jailbird named Francois-Marie Arouet, who was so stubborn and headstrong that his parents had always called him "le volontaire," meaning self-willed. Gradually this was shortened to Voltaire.

French literary historians are instinctively not friendly to the idea that the most famous Frenchman was a Venetian agent working for Conti, but the proof is convincing. Voltaire knew both Conti personally and Conti's works. Conti is referred to a number of times in Voltaire's letters. In one letter, Voltaire admiringly shares an anecdote about Conti and Newton. Voltaire asks, should we try to find the proof of the existence of God in an algebraic formula on one of the most obscure points in dynamics? He cites Conti in a similar situation with Newton: "You're about to get angry with me," says Conti to Newton, "but I don't care." I agree with Conti, says Voltaire, that all geometry can give us are about forty useful theorems. Beyond that, it's nothing more than a fascinating subject, provided you don't let metaphysics creep in.

Voltaire also relates Conti's version of the alleged Spanish conspiracy against Venice in 1618, which was supposedly masterminded by the Spanish ambassador to Venice, Count Bedmar. Conti's collected works and one of his tragedies are in Voltaire's library, preserved at the Hermitage in St. Petersburg.

The book which made Voltaire famous was his Philosophical Letters, sometimes called the English letters, because they are devoted to the exaltation of all things British, which Voltaire had observed during his three years in London. In the essay on Shakespeare, Voltaire writes that Shakespeare is considered the Corneille of England. This is a quote from Conti, taken from the head note to Conti's tragedy Giulio Cesare, which had been published in Paris in 1726. Voltaire's view of Shakespeare as sometimes inspired, but barbarous and "crazy" for not respecting French theatrical conventions, is close to Conti's own practice. We can thus associate Conti with Voltaire's first important breakthrough, and the point where Anglophilia becomes Anglomania in France.

But most important, Voltaire's Philosophical Letters center on the praise of Newton. After chapters on Francis Bacon and John Locke, there are four chapters on Newton, the guts of the work. For Voltaire, Newton was the first discoverer of the calculus, the dismantler of the entire Cartesian system. His "sublime ideas" and discoveries have given him "the most universal reputation." Voltaire also translated Newton directly, and published Elements of Newtonian Philosophy.

The Philosophical Letters were condemned and Voltaire had to hide in the libertine underground for a time. He began to work on another book, The Century of Louis XIV. The idea here was simple: to exalt Louis XIV as a means of attacking the current king, Louis XV, by comparison. This was an idea that we can also find in Conti's manuscripts. Louis XV was, of course, a main target of the Anglo-Venetians.

In 1759, Voltaire published his short novel Candide, a distillation of Venetian cultural pessimism expressed as a raving attack on Leibniz, through the vicious caricature Dr. Pangloss. Toward the end of the story, Candide asks Pangloss: "Tell me, my dear Pangloss, when you were hanged, dissected, cruelly beaten, and forced to row in a galley, did you still think that everything was for the best in this world?" "I still hold my original opinions, replied Pangloss, because after all, I'm a philosopher, and it wouldn't be proper for me to recant, since Leibniz cannot be wrong, and since pre-established harmony is the most beautiful thing in the world, along with the plenum and subtle matter." When Candide visits Venice, he meets Senator Pococurante, whom he considers a great genius because everything bores him and nothing pleases him. Senator Pococurante is clearly a figure of Abbot Antonio Conti. Conti was, we must remember, the man whom Voltaire quoted admiringly in his letter cited above telling Newton that he didn't care - non me ne curo, perhaps, in Italian. Among Conti's masks was certainly that of worldly boredom.

Conti later translated one of Voltaire's plays, Merope, into Italian.

CONTI AND THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

Conti's discussion of the supremacy of the sense of touch when it comes to sense certainty is echoed in the writing of the philosopher Condillac. Echoes of Conti have been found by some in Diderot's Jacques the Fatalist. And then there is Buffon, who published Newton's book on fluxions in French. More research is likely to demonstrate that most of the ideas of the French Enlightenment come from the Venetian Conti. The creation of a pro- Newton, anti-Leibniz party of French Anglomaniacs was a decisive contribution to the defeat of France in the mid-century world war we call the War of the Austrian Succession and the Seven Years' War, which gave Britain world naval supremacy, and world domination. Conti's work was also the basis for the later unleashing of the French Revolution. In the epistemological war, the French Newtonians were indispensable for the worldwide consolidation of the Newton myth. In Italy, there were Venetian writers like Voltaire's friend Algarotti, the author of a book of Newtonian Philosophy for Ladies. Newton's ideas were also spread by Abbot Guido Grandi, who labored to rehabilitate Galileo inside the Catholic Church. Another Italian intellectual in Conti's orbit was Gimbattista Vico, later popularized by Benedetto Croce. The main point is that only with the help of Venice could the senile cultist kook Newton attain worldwide respect.

Conti was active until mid-century; he died in 1749. In Venice he became the central figure of a salon that was the worthy heir of Ridotto Morosini. This was the sinister coven that called itself the philosophical happy conversazione ("la conversazione filosofica e felice") that gathered patrician families like the Emo, the Nani, the Querini, the Memmo, and the Giustinian. These were libertines, freethinkers, Satanists. We are moving toward the world portrayed in Schiller's Geisterseher. After Conti's death, the dominant figure was Andrea Memmo, one of the leaders of European Freemasonry.

An agent shared by Memmo with the Morosini family was one Giacomo Casanova, a homosexual who was backed up by a network of lesbians. Venetian oligarchs turned to homosexuality because of their obsession with keeping the family fortune intact by guaranteeing that there would only be one heir to inherit it; by this time more than two- thirds of male nobles, and an even higher percentage of female nobles, never married. Here we have the roots of Henry Kissinger's modern Homintern. Casanova's main task was to target the French King Louis XV through his sexual appetites. There is good reason to believe that Louis XV's foreign minister De Bernis, who carried out the diplomatic revolution of 1756, was an agent of Casanova. One may speculate that Casanova's networks had something to do with the approximately 25 assassination plots against Louis XV. Finally, Louis XV banned Casanova from France with a lettre de cachet.

Another agent of this group was Count Cagliostro, a charlatan and mountebank whose targets were Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, whom he destabilized through their own folly in the celebrated Queen's Necklace Affair of 1785. Cagliostro was able to make Louis and especially Marie Antoinette personally hated, a necessary precondition for mass insurrection against them. Emperor Napoleon later said that this operation by Cagliostro had marked the opening phase of the French Revolution of 1789.

CONTI'S LEGACY OF EVIL

Another member of the Conti-Memmo conversazione was Giammaria Ortes, who had been taught Newton by Conti personally, as well as by Grandi. Ortes was another defrocked cleric operating as an abbot. Ortes is the author of a manual of Newtonian physics for young aristocrats, including a chapter on electricity which manages to avoid Benjamin Franklin, in the same way that Galileo avoided Kepler. Ortes carried out Conti's program of applying Newtonian methods to the social sciences. This meant that everything had to be expressed in numbers. Ortes was like the constipated mathematician who worked his problem out with a pencil. He produced a calculus on the value of opinions, a calculus of the pleasures and pains of human life, a calculus of the truth of history. This is the model for Jeremy Bentham's felicific or hedonistic calculus and other writings. Using these methods, Ortes posited an absolute upper limit for the human population of the Earth, which he set at 3 billion. This is the first appearance of carrying capacity. Ortes was adamant that there had never been and could never be an improvement in the living standard of the Earth's human population. He argued that government intervention, as supported by the Cammeralist school of Colbert, Franklin, and others, could never do any good. Ortes provided all of the idea-content that is found in Thomas Malthus, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, the two Mills, and the rest of Lord Shelburne's school of British philosophical radicalism in the time after 1775.

Conti has left a commentary on Plato's Parmenides, which he interprets as Plato's self- criticism for the mistake of having made ideas themselves the object of philosophical attention. In his Treatise on Ideas, Conti writes that the fundamental error of Plato is to attribute real existence to human ideas. All our ideas come from sense perceptions, says Conti.

In 1735 Conti was denounced to the Venetian Inquisition because of his reported religious ideas. Conti was accused of denying the existence of God. True to his factional pedigree, Conti also denied the immortality of the human soul. Conti reportedly said of the soul: "Since it is united with a material body and mixed up with matter, the soul perished with the body itself." Conti got off with the help of his patrician aristocrat friends. He commented that God is something that we cannot know about, and jokingly confessed his ignorance. He even compared himself to Cardinal Nicolaus of Cusa. Conti described his own atheism as merely a version of the docta ignorantia [referring to Cusa's book by the same name, On Learned Ignorance]. But this Senatore Pococurante still lives in every classroom where Newton is taught.

Surely it is time for an epistemological revolution to roll back the Venetian frauds of Galileo, Newton, and Bertrand Russell.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC NOTES

On the general thesis involving Contarini as the instigator of the reformation and counter- reformation, Sarpi and the Giovani as the organizers of the Enlightenment, and the post-Cambrai metastasis of the Venetian fondi to England and elsewhere, see Webster G. Tarpley, "The Venetian Conspiracy" in "Campaigner" XIV, 6 September 1981, pp. 22-46.

On Leonardo da Vinci and the origins of the telescope, see the work of Domenico Argentieri.

On Sarpi: The most essential works of Sarpi's epistemology are the Pensieri and the Arte di Ben Pensare. They are available only in Italian as Fra Paolo Sarpi, "Scritti Filosofici e teologici" (Bari: Laterza, 1951). But this collection is not complete, and many pensieri and other material remain in manuscript in the libraries of Venice. Other works of Sarpi are assembled in his "Opere," edited by Gaetano and Luisa Cozzi. There is some discussion of the pensieri in David Wooton, "Paolo Sarpi: Between Renaissance and Enlightenment" (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). An overview of the Galileo-Sarpi relationship is found in Gaetano Cozzi, "Paolo Sarpi tra Venezia e l'Europa" (Torino: Einaudi, 1979); Cozzi avoids most of the implications of the material he presents.

On Galileo: Pietro Redondi, "Galileo: Heretic" (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987) has material on the political background of Galileo's relations with the papacy and the holy orders of the day. The Galileo-Kepler correspondence is in Galileo's 20 volume "Opere," edited by A. Favaro and I. Del Lungo (Florence, 1929-1939).

On Kepler: The standard biography is Max Caspar, "Kepler" (London: Abelard-Schuman, 1959). Some of Kepler's main works are now in English, including "The Secret of the Universe" translated by AM Duncan (New York: Abaris Books, 1981); and "New Astronomy" translated by William H. Donahue (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992).

On Conti: A recent biography is Nicola Badaloni, "Antonio Conti: Un abate libero pensatore fra Newton e Voltaire (Milano: Feltrinelli, 1968). Selections from Conti's many manuscript works which are found in libraries especially in and near Venice are in Nicola Badaloni (ed.), "Antonio Conti: Scritti filosofici" (Naples: Fulvio Rossi, 1972). For Conti as the teacher of Ortes, and on Ortes as a popularizer of Newton see Mauro di Lisa, "'Chi mi sa dir s'io fingo?': Newtonianesimo e scetticismo in Giammaria Ortes" in "Giornale Critico della filosofia italiana" LXVII (1988), pp. 221-233. For the Conti- Oliva- Montesquieu Paris salons, see Robert Shackleton, "Montesquieu: a critical biography." Voltaire's "Candide" and "Philosophical Letters" are available in various English language editions. For Voltaire's references to Conti, see "Voltaire's Correspondence," edited in many volumes by Theodore Besterman (Geneva- Les Delices: Institut et Musee Voltaire, 1964). Note that Voltaire also had extensive correspondence and relations with Algarotti. For Voltaire's possession of Conti's books, see the catalogue of Voltaire's library now conserved in Leningrad published by the Soviet Academy of Sciences in 1961, p. 276. Gustave Lanson is an example of French literary critics who stubbornly avoid the obvious facts of Conti's piloting of Voltaire; see his edition of Voltaire's "Lettres philosophiques" (Paris, 1917), vol. II p. 90.

On Newton: Lord Keynes's revelations on Newton's box are in his "Essays in Biography" (New York: Norton, 1963), pp. 310-323. Louis Trenchard More, "Isaac Newton: A Biography (New York: Dover, 1962) includes a small sampling of material from Newton's box. Richard S. Westfall, "Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton" (New York, Cambridge University Press, 1987) dips somewhat deeper into the box and supplies the green lion quotes, but still tries to defend the hoax of Newton as a scientist. For the typical lying British view of the Newton-Leibniz controversy, see A. Rupert Hall, "Philosophers at War" (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). See Leibniz's letters for what really happened.

END

Return to Tarpley Index