The concepts of "time" vs "destiny" is very interesting. I often find myself walking through the past and trying to explain it. I'll start looking for a "destiny" switch!
Newton did not see gravity as inherent in matter, or space as empty. He wrote:
That gravity should be innate inherent & {essential} to matter so yt one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum wthout the mediation of any thing else by & through wch they may convey their action or force {may} be conveyed/ from one to another is to me so great an absurdity that I beleived no man who has in philosophical matters any competent {illeg} faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent {acting} <7v> consta{ntl}y according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to ye consideration of my readers.
As it is, Lorentz' relativity showed that Newton's laws were not valid at speeds near the speed of light. So Newton's laws are indeed "models", and not "objective facts".
no subject
The concepts of "time" vs "destiny" is very interesting. I often find myself walking through the past and trying to explain it. I'll start looking for a "destiny" switch!
Newton did not see gravity as inherent in matter, or space as empty. He wrote:
As it is, Lorentz' relativity showed that Newton's laws were not valid at speeds near the speed of light. So Newton's laws are indeed "models", and not "objective facts".