zt 威尼斯的死靈魂如何敗壞科學思想。。。。。Goggle 翻譯版。。。

如何威尼斯損壞學死魂靈

ICLC會議，1994年9月

是一個對世界曆史發展的癌症 - 癌症oligarchism。 公元1200年至約公元1600年，世界的中心oligarchism力量的重心是威尼斯的寡頭政治。 威尼斯的寡頭政治走向的時間結束時，由於各種原因決定轉移到一個新的行動基地，這竟然是英倫三島的家庭，財富和特點前景。 其在倫敦的資本一個世界性的新羅馬帝國的新方案 - 最終來到被稱為英帝國所取代舊的程序是一個世界性的新羅馬帝國的首都在威尼斯。

這是癌症的轉移，從亞得裏亞海的威尼斯黨轉變為在泰晤士河岸邊，而這一直是世界寡頭在過去五個世紀的主要項目。 威尼斯人黨，無論它是，認為在認識論的戰爭。 威尼斯人黨知道，思想更強大的武器比槍，車隊，和炸彈。 為了確保接受自己帝國的想法，威尼斯黨試圖控製人們的思維方式。 如果你能控製人們的思維方式，說的威尼斯人，你可以控製的方式，他們對事件作出響應，無論這些事件可能是什麽。 因此，至關重要的威尼斯人控製哲學，特別是科學，人類假說和創造性的原因權力成為改善自然秩序的力量的地方。 威尼斯人黨的科學發現implacably敵對。 自亞裏士多德的日子裏，他們試圖通過使用形式主義和權威性的專業意見拜物教窒息的科學發現。 威尼斯人黨還創造了一係列科學欺詐和惡作劇，已無可辯駁的和不容挑戰當局的地位提升到數百年。 這些已被用來篡奪了應有的榮譽，由於真正的科學家，威尼斯人人所做的一切都是可能的破壞。

我們可以找出威尼斯派一直負責這些科學和認識論欺詐的最重要的。 他們可以被稱為“死魂靈”派，或者“沒有靈魂的兄弟”威尼斯的情報。 這是因為他們的派係的開山鼻祖是基於相信，人類有沒有靈魂。 他們的派別的信條是人類有沒有創造性的精神力量，不能形成假設，並不能進行科學發明的想法。

三組威尼斯GAMEMASTERS

在三組中，我們可以向這些威尼斯的亡靈。 首先是圍繞組彼得羅蓬波納齊，Gasparo黎尼和弗朗切斯科Zorzi，活躍在16世紀的第一部分。 二是有保羅薩爾皮和他的得力助手Fulgenzio Micanzio，伽利略辦案人員組。 這是該集團在16世紀初期，開普勒反對。 第三，我們在18世紀早期周圍安東尼奧孔蒂和賈馬裏亞Ortes組。 這是集團創建牛頓神話和現代唯物主義或功利主義和打擊戈特弗裏德威廉萊布尼茨。 威尼斯gamemasters這三組負責一個很大的蒙昧主義和垃圾，像今天對人類大腦的噩夢重。 這些威尼斯的情報官員的現代世界的無神論者和唯物主義者，反映在後來被稱為辯證唯物主義的祖先像伽利略，牛頓，伏爾泰的數字，因為蘇聯作家的同情。

在16世紀初的第一個分組的領軍人物Gasparo黎尼。 在其他地區，我們已經告訴如何黎尼，威尼斯人raisons政變，宗教改革運動，包括讓英格蘭國王亨利八世，馬丁路德，加爾文在日內瓦，意大利加密新教徒GLI已知的故事Spirituali。 與此同時，黎尼是羅馬天主教的樞機主教，誰策劃天主教反改革的早期階段。 黎尼依納爵羅耀拉的個人保護，並建立耶穌會起到決定性的作用。 亞裏士多德的平台上，黎尼還召集安理會的遄達。

這是我們所看到的亡靈派的派係明確的譜係與彼得羅蓬波納齊。 蓬波納齊從亞裏士多德開始，威尼斯人黨始終。 亞裏士多德斷言，沒有想到這是不符合混合感覺印象。 這意味著，沒有我們的精神生命的一部分，這是不是由物質汙染。 對於蓬波納齊，這證明靈魂不存在，因為它沒有無關緊要的物質。 黎尼蓬波納齊警告不要采取任何進一步的這個問題，但也指出，唯一的一次靈魂的存在是真的一定是時，人已經死了。 黎尼，作為一個實際問題，有沒有經驗的人的靈魂，而你仍然活著，你可以做到心中有數。

弗朗切斯科Zorzi是本組的特使亨利八世，他成為駐地性別顧問。 Zorzi說明在16世紀初的威尼斯情報人員的典型特征：他的主要職業是黑魔法玫瑰十字會的各種方濟會修士。 他是一個魔術師，一個亡靈法師，apparitionist。 克裏斯托弗馬洛的博士浮士德想想，你有Zorzi的肖像。 不完全是為任何年齡的科學書呆子的示範作用。 隨著16世紀到17世紀時，此配置文件開始，到目前嚴重的缺點和局限性。

薩爾皮及GALILEO

直到大約1600，威尼斯黨對科學的姿態或多或少開放的敵意，有利於黑魔法。 但在17世紀初，圍繞薩爾皮組成功地改變他們的公眾形象，從科學的敵人，是最先進和尖端科學的化身。 在此之後的幾個世紀，威尼斯人將科學界內接管。 他們聲稱代表的科學價值的最高體現。 通過這種方式，他們可以死手的形式主義和權力拜物教製度化，從而扼殺的過程中發現。

威尼斯情報負責人，這可能是保羅薩爾皮。 薩爾皮和他的朋友Fulgenzio Micanzio Servite僧侶。 薩爾皮Ridotti Morosini酒店，一個重要的一天，威尼斯沙龍討論Morosini酒店大運河上的家庭宮殿舉行的一部分。 Morosini酒店Gasparo黎尼直接的思想繼承人。 Morosini酒店發廊集中在一個科學的討論，並成為威尼斯的寡頭政治，所謂的喬瓦尼，成為1582強大的後青春派的核心。 喬瓦尼的青睞與荷蘭，英國，法國與奧地利和西班牙Hapsburgs和教皇發生衝突的合作的政策。 Vecchi，老歌，西班牙和羅馬教皇的一麵，也相當廣泛的威尼斯的網絡服務。

我們已經向在其他地點，如何薩爾皮組織和發動了三十年的戰爭，在中歐最大von Thurn和出租車，基督教馮安哈爾特，克裏斯托夫馮多納和選民帕拉丁馮檢基，所謂的冬季國王像使用代理。 在這個意義上說，保羅薩爾皮親自消滅整個歐洲的人口約三分之一，德國及周邊地區的人口約一半。 薩爾皮也引起了法國，當亨利反對薩爾皮的設計和暴露了他作為一個無神論者的暗殺國王亨利四世。 保羅薩爾皮，我們可以看到，羅素是一個值得前身。

但在他自己的時間薩爾皮被認為是一位傑出的數學家。 一個當代他寫道：“... ...我可以說對他沒有任何誇張，在歐洲沒有一個人，他擅長於[數學]科學知識。” 這是伽利略舉行薩爾皮查看。

包括在1590年代薩爾皮Ridotto Morosini酒店的同伴影響力的神秘的布魯諾。 從1592年開始，也有在附近的帕多瓦大學的數學教授：伽利略，一個土生土長的佛羅倫薩。 伽利略在帕多瓦教數學從1592年到1610年，和威尼斯領土上逗留期間，他成了名人。 伽利略是一個薩爾皮支付代理，薩爾皮薩爾皮的得力助手Micanzio的死亡，後。 有一個薩爾皮和伽利略的科學學科之間的對應關係，包括磁性，這是薩爾皮的最愛，因為他發現，隱匿。 伽利略落體薩爾皮，誰熱情，伽利略已經誕生，解決問題的議案提出他的一些想法。

伽利略的名氣采購時，他用一個小望遠鏡觀測木星的衛星，土星環，和金星的階段。 他在他的作文星空信使，立即讓他在歐洲首屈一指的科學家，從而為威尼斯黨的影響力非常重要的代理這些目擊報告。 這整個望遠鏡操作已製定了保​​羅薩爾皮。

已建成的第一個望遠鏡達芬奇約一百年前伽利略。 蘇珊威爾士注意研究多梅尼科Argentieri呼籲萊昂納多的光學手稿，這表明，萊昂納多的望遠鏡已經在其他的一端的凸透鏡和凹透鏡。 它的放大率是相當薄弱的，但它是一個望遠鏡。 有望遠鏡於1590年在意大利的報告。 到1608年，望遠鏡開始在荷蘭，和伽利略說，他鼓勵他們的報告，在1609年建立自己的望遠鏡。

薩爾皮這些事件的版本是更準確的。 他寫道：1610年3月16日，望遠鏡已在荷蘭發現的前兩年，因此，在春天1608。 薩爾皮寫道，“一旦這個被發現的，”“我們的帕多瓦數學家[伽利略]和我們的其他人，誰是這些藝術無知一些天體上開始使用的望遠鏡，調整和提煉為目的.. ... ...“ 注意：伽利略“和一些其他人。” 它會出現的意見不是從帕多瓦，但保羅薩爾皮Servite修道院在威尼斯。 薩爾皮寫伽利略“我們​​的數學家”的說法，他“經常與他討論時間”有關的望遠鏡觀測的結果，並沒有需要讀什麽伽利略對他們的書麵。

在1611年，波蘭的遊客到威尼斯，雷伊，寫伽利略並沒有真正的望遠鏡的發明者，但“顧問，作者，導演”望遠鏡項目已被父親保羅薩爾皮，“誰被認為是這裏最偉大的數學家。“

1597年，開普勒已經派出了他的新著，Mysterium Cosmographicum，伽利略的副本。 這是工作中，開普勒了解行星繞太陽軌道的諧波訂購的基礎上提出的柏拉圖固體。 伽利略於是致信開普勒，解釋，他也，是哥白尼的日心說觀點的追隨者，但他“不敢”來查看這是因為恐懼，而寧願坐在全業務由於氣候的意見。 開普勒寫回敦促伽利略有信心，要為真理而鬥爭，主動找到出版商在德國，如果意大利的氣候太壓迫。 伽利略並沒有做到這一點，並拒絕詳細評論​​開普勒的書。 根據開普勒的傳記作者最大卡斯帕，在接下來的幾年，伽利略使用材料開普勒在他的演講，但沒有給予開普勒信貸。

開普勒和伽利略超過30年，在頻繁的接觸。 開普勒仁慈的利益 - 與微妙的論戰 - 關於伽利略的出版作品。 但是，伽利略從來沒有評論係統開普勒定律。 1609年，開普勒出版了他的Astronomia新星，闡述了他的第一和第二的行星運動規律 - 行星在太陽是一個焦點的橢圓移動，行星掃出在相等的時間在自己和太陽作為之間的平等地區他們圍繞。 的兩個偉大的世界在1533年出版係統，伽利略的對話，開普勒是難以提及，而對哥白尼的討論中心，他的行星繞太陽完美的圓的軌道，會計沒有希望的的觀察立場行星。 最後，人物之一說，他是在開普勒驚訝被如此“薄利多銷”的屬性潮汐月球的吸引力。

期間的教皇烏爾班八世巴貝裏尼教皇的第一年，伽利略是半官方的科學家為教皇。 但在1631年，德國瑞典古斯塔夫阿道夫新教軍隊作戰時，通過它的方式，達到了阿爾卑斯山，似乎已作好準備，以掃上羅馬市第八突然轉向從法國親一個親西班牙的政策。 西班牙的崛起是由多米尼加與耶穌會的支持下進行的審判伽利略的背景下。 幾年前，薩爾皮曾預測，如果伽利略前往羅馬，耶穌會士及其他有可能“轉... ...到一個神學問題的物理學和天文學的問題，”譴責“逐出教會的異端”伽利略和迫使他“宣布放棄他的所有關於這一問題的的意見”。 1616薩爾皮似乎很清楚知道會發生什麽，超過15年後，在他自己死後，。 很明顯，這裏的場景勾勒相當於薩爾皮自己的長遠計劃。 伽利略的審判是最大的公共關係的所有時間的成功經驗之一。 對伽利略在羅馬的Santa Maria SOPRA密涅瓦多米尼加進行鎮壓的姿態，建立了方程，伽利略=現代實驗科學，反對愚昧蒙昧主義困境。 這個等式已經站以來，這一悲慘的誤解了人類思想的可怕後果。 迷失在有關伽利略的騷動，開普勒已經由偵查譴責更比十年前的有關事實。

薩爾皮的哲學和科學著作沒有公布，直到二戰結束後。 這些Pensieri，或思考，和ARTE DI本Pensare，藝術思維好。 薩爾皮的成就，是為威尼斯的情報，以抽象的亞裏士多德的方法，從亞裏士多德在這個或那個特定問題表示意見的質量。 這樣，意義肯定可以作為科學實驗的基礎上，保持和亞裏士多德的令人難堪的過時的某些自然現象的看法可以被拋棄。 這允許威尼斯人保留必要的亞裏士多德，而攻擊亞裏士多德或巡回學校的指數，如Collegio羅馬耶穌會士，。 薩爾皮這些著作沒有被翻譯，但他們是弗朗西斯培根爵士寫的一切的基礎。 培根霍布斯家政薩爾皮和Micanzio密切接觸。 薩爾皮也可以在洛克發現，花了近1000頁，寫什麽薩爾皮30。

在藝術思維好，薩爾皮從感知覺和意識的確定性。 他建議，在我們的感官儀器外部對象的印象，從這些對象區別開來。 尤其是他點口味，氣味和聲音，他認為是一個我們的神經係統的問題，外部現實。 在不同類別的想法的數量，規模和時間，這是客觀。 在相同的手稿，薩爾皮列出的錯誤思想的不朽的靈魂。 薩爾皮重複，沒有感覺，因為沒有知識，靈魂與身體的死亡蓬波納齊參數。 再次，威尼斯的亡靈派的商標。

伽利略的認識論直接來自薩爾皮。 我們可以看到，在伽利略的1623征文金正日Saggiatore，Assayer。 伽利略，顏色，味道，聲音，氣味，是單純的文字。 他們隻存在於我們的身體。 伽利略使得這些著名的比較，以發癢。 如果你刷一個大理石雕像的腳或腋窩的鞋底，一地雞毛，你會不會產生癢痛。 但是如果你這樣做一個人，你會導致發癢的感覺。 所以，伽利略說，它是時間來擺脫的耳朵，舌頭，和鼻子，形狀，數字和議案去，而且從來沒有氣味，味道和聲音。 由此看來，他的收益迅速，其中一個原子的還原理論熱效果“火熱minims”火成岩原子解釋。 伽利略的認識論是薩爾皮相同。 這是伽利略意味著什麽時，他否認亞裏士多德說，真理是寫在書的性質，並寫在數學字符。 伽利略是一個還原。

薩爾皮在1623年去世，成為Servite和尚Fulgenzio Micanzio和伽利略計劃的情況下人員。 Micanzio後伽利略受到譴責，想起了20年前他從薩爾皮收到轉讓伽利略：寫論文的議案。 的方式，Micanzio，我為你258磅。 後來，Micanzio將促使伽利略的養老金每年60 scudi從威尼斯國家庫房。

伽利略回應Micanzio的訂單與上兩個新的科學，力學和局部運動的1638話語。 由於伽利略被宗教裁判所譴責，他不能發表任何地方，教皇權威強勁。 Micanzio因此安排為伽利略的書印Elsevir由荷蘭萊頓按。

在1634年，Micanzio寫道伽利略，他已經被談論科學和哲學方麵的專家 - 被稱為一個在一天的說法演奏家 - 誰曾評論說，雖然他並沒有否認伽利略的科學能力，“你帶來的東西是並不新鮮，但已經在開普勒。“ 的確如此。 伽利略寫了回信，正確的答案，這演奏家是，伽利略和開普勒雖然有時可能似乎都同意對某些天文現象，“我的哲思的方式是從他的不同。” （1634年11月19日）。

在1640年寫的信件，伽利略扔進一步對自己的科學方法。 伽利略抱怨說，他已被人誤解：“對所有在世界上的原因，我指責impugning巡回學說，而我信奉和一定的觀察更虔誠的巡回上午， - 或者，把它更好，亞裏士多德 - 比許多教義其他...." （1640）8月24日，。 伽利略聲稱，他曾試圖研究的現象：“在所有的自然效果保證我對他們的存在，他們的”坐“[如果]，而我獲得沒有從他們的如何，他們的”quomodo“（6月23日， 1640），有些可能會嚐試以解雇作為一個伽利略的前景的打擊力度，其中他是仍然是受害者造成的失真這些招生，但我會提交這在真正的伽利略所說。伽利略是試圖表達這裏的相同事情艾薩克牛頓意味著與他的臭名昭著的“假設非fingo”我不杜撰假說]，這給我們帶來牛頓。

牛頓：一個邪教樸仁國

威尼斯的科學腐敗的下一階段取決於由艾薩克牛頓的名字上一個相當模糊的劍橋唐。 對於寡頭政治，牛頓和伽利略是自亞裏士多德自己派最有影響力的思想家的榮譽隻有兩個競爭者。 英國寡頭稱讚牛頓作為現代科學的奠基人。 但是，在同一時間，他們已無法保持秘密的事實，牛頓是一個囈語的非理性主義，邪教瘋子。 在寡頭，這是主的英國經濟學家約翰梅納德凱恩斯和一位同行的劍橋畢業生開始打開黑匣子牛頓的真實性格。 是牛頓第一和最大的現代科學家，醫生冷和untinctured原因？ 沒有，凱恩斯說，牛頓不是理性時代的第一。 他是最後的魔術師，巴比倫人和蘇美爾人的最後，最後美妙的兒童賢士能做到真誠和適當的敬意。 凱恩斯基於他在一個盒子的內容。 在框中是什麽？ 盒子中的牛頓收拾行裝，當他離開倫敦劍橋1696年，結束了他的劍橋生涯，並在倫敦開始他的新生活，為會員和英國皇家學會，薄荷主任會長，新的英國居民法師的論文帝國。

箱內共約1.2萬字的手稿和文件。 牛頓去世後，主教霍斯利被要求檢查框，出版，但是當他看到的內容，他退縮了，驚恐，砰的一聲蓋子。 一個世紀過去了。 牛頓的19世紀的傳記作者大衛布魯斯特爵士，看著成箱。 他決定以節省打印幾的選擇牛頓的聲譽，但他偽造與直線fibbing的其餘部分，正如凱恩斯說。 框成為著名的樸茨茅斯論文。 在1888年劍橋幾個數學論文。 1936年，目前的所有者，利明頓勳爵，急需用錢，所以他休息拍賣。 凱恩斯買了很多，他可以，但分散從耶路撒冷到美國的其他文件。

正如凱恩斯所指出的，牛頓是一個多疑，偏執，不穩定的個性。 牛頓在1692年，神經衰弱和未曾收複前他的心境一致性。 佩皮斯和洛克認為，他已經變得精神錯亂。 牛頓出現，從他的分項略“加加”。 正如凱恩斯強調，牛頓“是完全從女性的超然，”雖然他有一些接近的年輕男性朋友。 他曾憤怒地指責洛克試圖卷入他與婦女。

在過去的幾十年裏，盒的蓋子已部分由牛頓神話的飼養者的親英派的學者和勉強打開。 我們可以看到箱內？

首先，牛頓的阿裏安異端的支持者。 他否認三位一體的攻擊，因此也Filioque和非凡之意象的概念。 凱恩斯認為，牛頓是“一個猶太教一神論學校的邁蒙尼德，”這表明他是一個秘術。 牛頓，崇拜基督作為神的偶像崇拜和彌天大罪。 即使在英國的教會，牛頓保持這些意見的秘密，否則將麵臨排斥。

Alchemy和綠色獅子

牛頓的實際利率是不是數學或天文學。 這是煉金術。 他在三一學院的實驗室，劍橋是裝出來的煉金術。 在這裏，他的朋友說，從來沒有在6個星期的春季和6周的秋季火災。 煉金術是什麽？ 是什麽樣的研究牛頓做呢？ 他的消息來源，如埃利亞斯Ashmole“Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum”玫瑰十字會的領導者，英國的投機性共濟的書籍。 牛頓國有Ashmole所有六重四開卷。

煉金術士的目標是追求神話般的哲學家的石頭，這將使方士蛻變成金鉛和其他基本金屬。 煉金術士希望哲學家的石頭會給予他們其他的神通，如複興和永恒的青春，。

煉金術也參與了行星的占星術的影響和化學品的行為之間的關係。 處理這些問題的一個論文是“變態的行星。” 由於木星的行星之間的優先級，它也占據了煉金術試劑中的特權地位。 牛頓表示，這本書的書名頁的正麵登基的圖片，他的木星提請。

牛頓的結論是什麽？ 讓他為自己代言。“關於鎂的綠色獅子，這就是所謂的普羅米修斯和變色龍也陰陽，和處女青翠的地球在太陽從來沒有投它的光線，雖然他是其父親和其母親的月亮常見的汞，這使得地球肥沃的天堂的露水，明智的硝。Instructio arbore索拉裏，這是陰沉的石頭。“ 這似乎已在17世紀70年代寫的。 一個從1690s的樣品：“現在這個綠色地球B.情人節的精美綠色金星和性病翡翠綠色和綠色地球斯奈德斯他喂他lunary水星綠夫人憑借戴安娜帶來兒童和仰裏普利綠色裏昂的血液，其中繪製工作的開始。“

在1680s牛頓還組成一係列的煉丹術，第六屆如下的警句：“年輕的新王出生在與牛奶的更大的腐爛的問題，從第二個工作destellation繪製熱營養有了這個牛奶他必須吸脹七次充分，然後腐爛他dococted的白色和紅色，並傳遞給紅色，他必須是一個紅色的小油吸脹，鞏固solary性質和紅色的石頭更變化無常的，這可能被稱為第三次工作，首先沒有比腐爛的進一步，第二次去的白色和紅色第三。“ （西部荒野，第292，293，358）。

如此這般多萬字，與綠色的獅子，Androgynes，男性和女性的原則，潘和Osiris。 誠然，它已經表示，牛頓探測，因為它從來沒有被探測之前或期間的時間，他據說是他寫的數學原理，因為所有的，煉金術文獻。 此外，他提請所羅門王聖殿的計劃，以及後來的聖經事件透視切出幾百年曆史年表。

牛頓的“發現”

牛頓應該發現？ 乍聽起來，事實證明，他沒有發現。 例如，牛頓的萬有引力定律，力的兩個點群眾的吸引力是平等的，通過它們之間的距離的平方除以兩個群眾的產品，次不斷的指控法律。 這是牛頓所謂的平方反比定律。 長期以來，人們一直知道這是不是一個真正的新發現，而是由一些從開普勒第三定律的修修補補派生。 開普勒建立了，從今年的平方除以太陽的行星的距離的立方總是等於一個常數。 補充惠更斯的離心加速度的公式，並做一些替換，你可以得到平方反比關係。 這個問題解決在附錄中的基督教經濟科學[林頓拉魯什，華盛頓特區：席勒研究所，1991年]。 但牛頓的支持者仍然聲稱，牛頓解釋重力。

通過開放的盒子的蓋子，我們發現，牛頓自己交代，在一份未公開的說明，他的偉大成就，是從開普勒cribbed。 牛頓寫道：“... ...我開始思考的重心延伸到月球ORB（已發現了如何估計的力量，按一個地球旋轉的球體表麵）從開普勒的規則定期倍行星寶珠中心的距離的sesquialterate比例，我推測，部隊必須保持他們的寶珠行星的距離的平方，他們圍繞中心相互...." （西部荒野，143頁）。 牛頓“惠更斯最近出版的離心力的公式代入開普勒第三定律的逆平方米的關係”（西部荒野，402）抵達。 胡克和克裏斯托弗Wren先生聲稱，大約在同一時間做同樣的事情。

愛牛頓的煉金術和魔法表麵作為他的觀點的基礎上，包括在他的科學著作。 在他的“Opticks，”他問，“有沒有一定的權力機構，美德，或力量小的顆粒，他們在距離法....如何執行這些景點可能，我沒有在這裏考慮。我呼籲的吸引力可能衝動被執行，或一些其他手段對我不知道。“ 這是牛頓的引力概念的距離，萊布尼茨正確地嘲笑黑魔法的行動。 牛頓的係統是無法描述超出兩個機構的互動任何的，應該有傷口如果沒有定期重新傷口像鍾表熵宇宙。 牛頓還寫了一個電動的精神，和他所謂的乙醚一個神秘的介質。 此基礎上，煉金術是不明確的。

再有就是牛頓發明微積分的故事。 牛頓從來沒有在他的整個生活在現實中，描述了演算。 他從未有過一個。 他炮製了一個所謂的fluxions和無窮級數理論。 這不是一個演算，並很快被遺忘沉沒時，它是牛頓去世9年後出版。 到1710年，歐洲科學家一直在努力與萊布尼茨的演算幾十年。 這是牛頓和英國皇家學會推出他們的競選主張，牛頓實際上已發明了微積分在1671年大約在那個時候，雖然一些奇怪的原因，他從來沒有說過它在30年期間的任何公共打印。 這是補充通過的第二項指控，，萊布尼茲是抄襲，複製後兩者之間的一些談話和交換信件的17世紀70年代期間他從牛頓的微積分。 這些對萊布尼茨的汙蔑寫牛頓，並把1715年作為英國皇家學會的官方定論。 同一行攪動下流破解牛頓的作家。 但在歐洲大陸的科學家，尤其是決定性的法國科學院，不相信牛頓的案件。 牛頓的大陸上的聲譽是最好是溫和的，當然也不崇高。 在英國，是對牛頓的阻力，用20-25％的反牛頓在皇家學會本身的感覺的硬核。 那麽如何科學家牛頓神話起源？

牛頓：騙子的神化

牛頓的神化被安排由安東尼奧孔蒂的威尼斯，我們的亡靈派的第三個分組的中心。 為了創造偉大的現代科學家牛頓的神話，孔蒂不得不這樣做可能被認為不可能在時間：創建一個在法國的親英的黨。 孔蒂成功，代表作為啟蒙運動的創始人，否則法國Anglophiles網絡的理解。 退化，足以成為Anglophiles這些法國人也將被降級足以成為Newtonians，反之亦然。 英國沒有網絡，可以使這種情況發生在巴黎，但威尼斯人沒有，最近感謝蒙田和皮埃爾培爾這些數字的工作。 英國決不可能完成，威尼斯人完成盎格魯 - 威尼斯黨的更大的輝煌。

在1677年出生在帕多瓦，孔蒂是一個貴族，威尼斯貴族的成員。 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