Lost notes on alchemy by Isaac Newton found

[dArKeR]

A collection of notes by the 17th century English mathematician and physicist Sir Isaac Newton, that scientists thought had been lost forever, have been found.
The notes on alchemy were originally discovered after Newton's death in 1727 but were lost after they were sold at auction in July 1936 for 15 pounds ($27).

They were found while researchers were cataloguing manuscripts at the Royal Society, Britain's academy of leading scientists.

"This is a hugely exciting find for Newton scholars and for historians of science in general," Dr John Young, of London's Imperial College Newton Project, said in a statement on Friday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050701/sc_nm/science_newton_dc

[sakabatou]

1. Wonder what his notes say.

Then again, nobody is going to use alchemy reading this... unlike they were the Elric brothers. ;)

[whistle]

2. Pb = Au = ???*%#@

[Throckmorton]

3. Yes, he had nothing on the underware gnomes

Underware + ? = Big Profit

[Kraklen]

4. Yeah, Newton had a crackpot side.

He was really into alchemy. Newton was a bit of a nut, really. Sort of like Tesla, I suppose.

[Pepperbelly]

5. LOL

Did it ever occur to you that Newton might have known something that you do not?

Or is this one of Kraklen's Laws (maybe you could help me out on this but I wasn't able to find them so maybe you could point me in the right direction)?

[beam me up scottie]

6. Like what ?

How to turn aluminum into gold ?
How to make the universal panacea which would give us eternal life?
How to read the code that would unlock the secrets of the universe?

Then how come he's dead ?

[Pepperbelly]

7. I don't know ...

I haven't read his private papers.

[beam me up scottie]

8. And I haven't read

Claude Vorilhon's private papers either but I still think he's a crackpot.

[Pepperbelly]

9. What does that have to do with Sir Issacc?

Are you saying that one is like the other?

[beam me up scottie]

10. Well, if it

walks like a duck...

[Pepperbelly]

11. LOL

So now you, too know far more than Sir Issac.

You guys are rich.

:rofl:

on edit ... how about we shit on Einstein and Heisenberg while we're at it?

:rofl:

boy my spelling sux.

[beam me up scottie]

12. Is that the only debate skill you have ?

And I use the word "skill" loosely.

Falsely attributing words and statements to other posters is the tactic of those who have nothing else to back up their claims.

I view Newton's crackpot belief in alchemy the same way I view Claude Vorilhon's religious beliefs.

You are free to believe in either, of course.

Ignore science and follow your heart, by all means.

Lots of folks do that their whole lives.

Just try to leave the high school tactics behind when engaging others in discussion. It's less boring for the rest of us and more people would probably respond to you.

[Pepperbelly]

13. self-delete ...

not worth the time.

[Kraklen]

16. Heisenberg was a nazi.

There's no small amount of contraversy about whether he helped or sabotaged the Nazi atomic bomb program. But the weight of historic evidence doesn't look good for Heisenberg.

I can't say anything bad about Einstein. He was one of those few great scientific (or historic) figures that didn't have some great character flaw.

But if I wanted to go around shitting on scientists or science in general, the best way to go about it is to go around supporting alchemy or other cuckoo pseudoscience.

[Kraklen]

15. No, I didn't occur to me.

I'm quite certain I know a great deal more about the nature of physical matter than Isaac Newton ever did.

That's not arrogance. I have the luxury of living in a time when we've discovered things like atoms, molecules, electrons and quantum mechanics.

I'm sure that if if Newton had a time machine and visited the 21st century he would have abandoned his futile work with alchemy. I'm less certain about his other character flaws- the propensity towards nervous breakdowns, the vicious mudslinging, the perpetual virginity, the bizarre religious beliefs.

[Johonny]

17. Hmm

Abstinence, bizarre religious beliefs, vicious mudslinging...
He'd probably feel right at home as a Fundie in the 21st century. I can see him on the 700 Vlub selling his book on the age of the Earth derived from the Bible right now.

[Kraklen]

18. He was also a brilliant scientist.

There's something about the 17th century that fostered modern conservative thinking. I'd like to think that Newton could have gotten past that sort of thing, given a modern education. Who knows.

[Johonny]

19. Doubt it

He was certainly more a bible thumper than his contemporaries. He was considered unusual even then. My guess is his childhood had a lot to do with it.

[Pepperbelly]

20. Okie-dokie, Sir Kraklen ...

Where can I find a copy of some of YOUR scientific work? Or your mathematical advancements? Or read praises sung about your intellect?

Just curious, since you think you have it going on more than old Isaac. Surely you're not just taling shit. So tell us ... do you do more than dance?

[Kraklen]

21. Since I wish to remain anonymous...

I'm not going to reference my own peer reviewed scientific work.

But if you want to look up the stuff that proves Newton wrong when it comes to alchemy, I suggest you look at the work of John Dalton, Joseph Priestly, Robert Boyle (whom Newton particularly hated), Avogadro, Mendeleev, Louis Pascal, August Kekule, Max Planck, Neils Bohr, hell, all of quantum mechanics, the work of Linus Pauling- particular the nature of the chemical bond, shall I continue?

You could just pick up any modern chemistry textbook.

I mean alchemy is a textbook example of pseudoscience. It's right up their with Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster.

I don't know why you're trying to argue otherwise.

[Pepperbelly]

22. whatever ...

I don't care who you are nor do I care about alchemy. What I do find beyond comprehension is a faceless internet poster who has the arrogance to compare his own mind with that of Sir Isaac. Thusfar, your first impression doesn't indicate the validity of your comparaison in any way.

And since you haven't examined his papers nor the voluminous papers destroyed at his behest as he lay dying, you quite frankly have ZERO way of knowing whether or not he knew something that you didn't. How could a real scientist make such a statement when the hole in his data is so large?

So are you McScientist whose work is filled with similar errors in judgement and similar leaps to conclusion. If so, I wouldn't want to link to it either.

[Kraklen]

23. I'd never compare myself to Newton.

I wish I were as good with math and physics as he was.

That said, when it came to the nature of matter, Newton left a lot to be desired. Nobody's perfect. Newton was no exception.

"you quite frankly have ZERO way of knowing whether or not he knew something that you didn't."

Sure I do. He left tons of stuff on the matter of alchemy, all of it bunk. Alchemy was debunked hundreds of years before you and I was born.

"How could a real scientist make such a statement when the hole in his data is so large?"

How could I have a scientist not come to such a statement? All scientists everywhere think that Newton was way off base when it comes to alchemy. As them yourself. Or better yet, study science and you'll come to the same conclusion.

"So are you McScientist whose work is filled with similar errors in judgement and similar leaps to conclusion."

My peers don't think so.

[Pepperbelly]

24. That's very easy to say online.

If you are a respected scientist, how is it that you cannot see the fallacy of your position? Any freshman philosophy student can see it yet to you, your dismissal was invalid and off-point. The question is not the papers that you have read but the ones that you have not ('you' being the people who have read the extant papers).

As a matter of fact, since he deemed many, many documents of his worthy of shredding while the others he hade little concern for. Of course, many possible explanations can be offered for that but one point is clear ... it is not possible to know what was in those destroyed papers (or for that matter the recently discovered papers as yet) thus making your assertion, that there was nothing Newton knew that you do not and that your knowledge far exceeds his.

Of course, you could assume that you know what was there or merely assume that there couldn't possibly be anything known to Newton not known now. But if you do, do you often use unsupportable assumptions in your peer reviewed work?

[Kraklen]

25. Freshmen philosophy students?

You know, I'm pretty sure that freshmen philosophy students have been around long enough to realize that Newton didn't know anything about the nature of physical matter.

Here's another blockbuster-

Charlesmagne didn't know squat about the geography of North America.

Oh my God, he didn't just say that, did he?

Tell you what. Let's get a bevy of freshmen philosophy students in here and they can judge the debate. I really don't think I'm the one with anything to worry about.

[Pepperbelly]

26. That is because you are being obtuse ...

whether it is intentional or not, I do not know. Of course, if you were in my spot, you would no doubt hazard a guess and pretend it was solid gold.

It is unfortunate that they left elementary logic out of your curriculum. Perhaps I can help you along when I get the time. Cheers.

On edit, I should really learn to do spellcheck before hiting enter.

[Kraklen]

27. I'm being obtuse?

You're the one thinking that Newton might have been on to something when it came to alchemy.

Maybe I am obtuse, at least I'm living in the 21st century.

[greyl]

14. I have extensive "notes" on astrology but

that doesn't mean I'm a proponent.

What do the notes say, I wonder?

[NNadir]

28. As a chemist, I have always wondered what Newton wrote on Alchemy.

It is probably the case that by destroying his work on the subject of Alchemy, Newton set back the science of chemistry by decades, if not centuries. He was - with the possible exception of Archimedes -probably the most brilliant analyst of the physical universe of all time, because unlike Einstein and others cited as peers - Newton was analyzing a universe in which almost zero was known.

If Newton was examining the subject of transformations of matter - irrespective of intent - he probably uncovered magnificent details and relationships that were extremely important. Why? Because he was Issac Newton.

I note that Newton had no intention of publishing The Principia. Famously the work was discovered in one of Newton's drawers (in response to an inquiry by Halley on the subject of cometary motion) by Sir Edmund Halley who then prevailed upon Newton to publish it. Had Halley not inquired, and had Newton destroyed that work, physics would have been enormously set back. So, I suspect, was chemistry set back when Newton hid is (al)chemical works.

[Caution]

29. Too bad this thread was thrown hopelessly off course

You raise some interesting points here. Unfortunately we have another science thread ruined. Have you read anything further on Newton's notes? As a chemist do you have any insight into the accuracy of some of the chemical observations?