Jump to content

Talk:Isaac Newton's occult studies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Goffman82 (talk | contribs) at 23:55, 23 June 2024 (→Discussion of OR and unencyclopedic tone issues: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 25 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Victoriamartinez3456.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newton and Daniel

This is just a poor start I doodled up, while Wikipedia was down. Feel free to try and NPOV it, if you feel it needs it.

Add his studies on Daniel and I think it's complete. I'm betting the studies got bogged in the mistranslation of the suffering servant prophecies... - Sparky 01:16, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Chronology

Please define the study of Chronology, the link has the obvious definition of chronology.

Done! I added a section on Chronology, though it may need some elaboration. Not sure if this part of Newton's research falls under Occult Study, but I suppose it does. I guess it could reflect "hidden knowledge", or at the very least Newton's version of history.--Trippz 08:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Credibility

Please add references to the article. Thanks. Adraeus 07:02, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yikes! You can say that again! A majority of it seems really POV. In need of some rewrites, or maybe just scrap the whole thing and merge to Isaac Newton's religious views as suggested below. Trippz 11:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

Could this be merged with Isaac Newton's religious views? Theres an awful lot of overlap.Borisblue 05:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the two should be merged, but this portion really needs some work first because it doesn't gel with itself, let alone a merge to another article. Its been tagged for wikify since July 2007. I agree, the context, verbage, and terminology almost appears ripped directly from other sources. Aside from the wikify tag, I think it also needs a "cleanup" as well. Interesting topic, I'd like to save it, but in its current state I suspect its heading to AfD pretty soon. Trippz 11:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After consideration I don't think it should be merged. There does seem to be enough Newton research to warrant an article separate from his Religious beliefs. I'm not sure some of this would fit nicely with an article about his religious convictions after all. I'm working on expanding the article so it can stand on it own. Help would be appreciated. Trippz 11:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Newton was a well known alchemist of his time"?

In this article, it is said that Newton was a well know alchemist of his time. So far as my knowledge of Newton goes, Newton did everything possible to hide his "occult" interests, especially alchemy.

It was only in the 1930s or so, when his papers were auctioned that Newton's occult leanings came to light.

Rather than edit the page straightaway, I would like the opinion and permission of the original author.

Thanks.

My understanding is that he was well known among alchemists at least. Since most scientists were alchemists up until the period of the American Civil War you do find a lot of alchemical or occult references to some of the things he studied, including fluxions, optics, the Temple of Solomons dimensions and the study of other classical temples and monuments such as the Great Pyramid, with Newtons published conjecture on [a pyramid inch] and the studies of the columns of the Parthenon.

The first suggestion that the builders of the Great Pyramid of Giza used units of measure related to modern measures is attributed to Oxford astronomy professor John Greaves (1602-1652), who journeyed to Egypt in 1638 to make measurements of the pyramid.

His findings were published in his Pyramidographia and under his name in an anonymous tract.[1] More than a century later, Greaves' measurements and additional measurements made by French engineers during Napoleon's expedition in Egypt, were studied by John Taylor (1781-1864).

Taylor claimed that the measurements indicated that the ancients had used a unit of measure about 1/1000 greater than a modern British inch.[2] This was origin of the "pyramid inch". Taylor regarded the "pyramid inch" to be 1/25 of the "sacred cubit" whose existence had earlier been postulated by Isaac Newton.[3]

The principal argument was that the total length of the four sides of the pyramid would be 36524 (100 times the number of days in a year) if measured in pyramid inches. Taylor and his followers, who included the Astronomer Royal of Scotland Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819-1900),[4] also found numerous apparent coincidences between the measurements of the pyramids and the geometry of the earth and the solar system.

They concluded that the British system of measures was derived from a far more ancient, if not divine, system. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, this theory played a significant role in the debates over whether Britain and the United States should adopt the metric system[5]

One reason for this might have been the development of interest in the seconds pendulum which appeared to relate Time, Space and Gravity

Newtons Alchemy

The first folio consists of an isolated treatment of the hardness and color of gems. An interesting and previously unnoticed point of interest lies in Newton's reference here to an unambiguously alchemical tract, the De veritate & antiquitate artis chymicae Robertus Vallensis(found in volume I of Lazarus Zetzner's Theatrum chemicum). Newton also refers to "chymists" who derive the colors of precious stones from metallic tinctures. It is clear, then that Newton was already reading chrysopoetic authors at the time when he took these notes, and they may well have helped to stimulate his interest in the nature of colors more generally.
The preliminary notes on gems give way almost immediately to one of Newton's earliest and most important treatments of optics , simply called "Of Colours" in the manuscript. Although much of the manuscript could be thought of as a sort of commonplace book, where Newton records the thoughts of writers whom he is reading,
"Of Colours" is an experimental treatise in its own right, occupying folios 2r up to 12v. The text has been edited and supplied with excellent notes and commentary by J.E. McGuire and Martin Tamny in their Certain Philosophical Questions: Newton's Trinity Notebook (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983) . We direct the reader to McGuire and Tamny's edition for their interpretive apparatus. Our edition reveals the relationship between "Of Colours" and Newton's evolving chymical pursuits, and of course it is fully searchable.
On folio 13r we find Newton's recipe for "an excellent ink," which employs , the then well known ingredients of oak galls and iron vitriol ("copperas") to make a black ink.
At 14r Newton launches into extensive reading notes grouped under commonplace headings such as "Of Cold & Heate." The vast majority of these entries, which extend to about 41v, draw upon the work of Robert Boyle, who greatly influenced the young Newton. Other easily identified sources in this section include the Harvard educated chymist George Starkey (34r) and the Spanish writer on Peruvian metallurgy, Alonso Barba (34).
On 41v Newton begins recording his own experimental notes. The bulk of the manuscript after this point consists of Newton's records of his own chymical experiments, though reading notes still appear at a number of places. Notes from George Starkey' 1658 work on medical chymistry, Pyrotechny, appear alongside borrowings from Boyle between folios 82v and 88v , for example. Among Newton's experimental notes there are also clear attempts to interpret and implement Starkey's mysterious transmutational writings, which the young American composed under the pseudonym of Eirenaeus Philalethes.
On 43r, for example, Newton describes his successful attempts at making Philalethes's "net," an alloy of copper and martial antimony regulus with a depression in the center and a fine crystalline surface resembling network.
On 54v Newton performs further experiments with the net, which he now equates with "the oak," another Philalethan product. Philalethes thought that the myth in which Cadmus, the legendary founder of Thebes, impaled a poisonous dragon upon an oak tree with his iron lance contained a hidden recipe for the production of antimony regulus from stibnite, the ore of antimony. Philalethes elsewhere advised to fuse the product of this reaction with copper, giving Newton license to identify the "oak" with the "net," as he clearly does on 54v as well as 68r and 68v.
On May 10, 1681 (see 62r ), Newton seems to have initially felt that he experienced a breakthrough in decoding Philalethes, for he says (in Latin) that he has understood the meaning of the "two doves" of Diana, one of the cover-names employed by Starkey's pseudonymous adept. Newton soon realized the delusory nature of his discovery, for he crossed the passage out. On May 18 (see 62v ) he had a similar experience, when he temporarily believed that he had uncovered the real sense of Mercury's caduceus: subsequently he struck this passage out as well. The sheer intellectual challenge of disentangling the riddling allegories of Philalethes and other alchemists was clearly one of the driving impulses behind Newton's chymistry.

On the final folio of the manuscript , Newton records the prices of various materials bought from "Mister Stonestreet" and "Mister Timothy Langley." These notes are of value in determining Newton's contacts in the world of seventeenth-century chymistry.

Rktect 17:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newton was a student of Elias Ashmole as I recall. Ashmole gathered during the purges in England all of he science and 'occult' as the priest of the time held all of this. Their time coming to an end, Elias decided to gather as much of what they had before they were burned or otherwise killed. They agreed and he became the most knowledgeable person in the science and occult world. Instruments, methods and formula were saved in the worlds first public museum. He held the chair that Newton later took. He was a Master Mason of the accepted type, not building trade type. Martin cite - ISBN 0954330927 author of book Tobias Churton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.92.35.246 (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Episode

You guy should watch the Nova episode dealing with this matter. It covers it quite well: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9062704729950935075&q=nova+duration%3Along

--Havermayer 06:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

"Foundations of Newtons's Alchemy" was written by Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs, unless there's another book by the same name. She is by far the authority on Newton's alchemy, as every other book I've read on the subject uses her book as a reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Poggy8 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Why is there a "speculations" section?

Are these speculations attested to any notable scholar, or are they just someone's musings about what Newton might have thought? The clause about how he "toyed with the idea of including margin notes attesting" Pythagoras' knowledge of gravity sounds rather unencyclopedic, unless there are comments in his notebooks or early drafts of his works supporting this.

It seems to me that these speculations should either be specifically cited to reliable sources, or removed altogether. If there's specific evidence supporting the claims, the section should be retitled: "speculations" suggests individual guesswork, rather than scholarship. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving them here, since they obviously need to be referenced before being included. CMummert · talk 17:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'll pop into the library and write up the references. I should add that I wrote most of the orginal article before we had a working method of adding cites or references... as for why the title of the section is "speculations", that is probably because I didn't wish to get into an edit war with the people who were sceptical of those being his real views. They are well attested, for all that. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 11:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypse

According to http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/06/18/newton.papers.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories Newton didn´t mean the world would end 2060, but that this was the earliest possible date for the world to end. He wrote "This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail."

Agreed! I've added the information to the 2060 section including direct and complete quotes from Newton's own work.--Trippz 08:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bible quotations

Please, Rktekt, I implore you to either add some valid context to the bible quotations you have added to the article that specifically tie them together with Newton. As they stand currently, they are without valid context, and thus very distracting and non-encyclopaedic. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 07:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its well known that Newton and other scientists of his period devoted a great deal of time to finding formulas to describe the relationship between gravity and orbital motion. From the time of Galileo studies of gravity timed with the seconds pendulum had demonstrated that its length and period were related to gravity and the mass of the earth.
The valid context is thus, that viewed from the perspective of a period which greatly admired the achievements of ancient architects, and studies of classical monuments, Newton's study of the dimensions of the temple is related to his study of gravity.
Some evidence of why Newton would begin by engaging in original research into ancient studies of gravity is historical. Newton and his peers read again and again about accurate measures of the Earths surface based on a common standard in the writings of Herodotus, Plato, Archimedes, Polonius, Eratosthenes, Strabo, Vitruvius, Ptolomy, Pithias and other sources which include the Bible.
Even before Biblical times there is found in architecture extensive use of the Egyptian itrw or river measure, the Greek stadion and Roman stadium and their subdivisions as a standard.
These standards of measure provide evidence for the known value of a degree which relates accurately to a sexigesimal division of the earths great circle which is then incorporated in other standards of measure.
Newton found, as other scholars since have noted, that there is a huge amount of inter-related math and physics from such studies incorporated in classical architectural proportions. Some Renaissance scientists actually measured ancient buildings to work out the proportions, Newton did this also but worked with the dimensions given in the Biblical description of the temple of Solomon.
Newton was particularly interested in things like the dimensions of the brazen sea, the dimensions of the columns, and of the rooms because the findings of archaeologists engaged in measuring other temples and tombs provided data that could be correlated.
The idea that temples and tombs have sacred geometry is an old one. The Greek orders of Architecture are based on the idea that architectural proportion which referenced Pi and Phi would be harmonious and beautiful. Gradually people studing these proportions discovered that they also referenced other mathematical and scientific concepts. For example in the properties of materials there are relationships of geometry and physics known as statics, a knowledge of which is used by architects and engineers so that a beam or an arch could be sized such that it would be able to take its load without failure according to the distance it was necessary to span.
In Newton there is a transition from such expressions of natural philosophy and alchemy to scientific enquiry. Of particular interest was the spherical geometry in which Newton thought the relation of the column proportions to degrees of the earth's circumference might help him determine the size of the earth so he could calculate its mass for his original research on gravity.
What do we know about Newton's geometrical interests? We know that Newton wrote more on these occult topics than on any of his scientific inquiries. We know that as an alchemist Newton enjoyed several ways of disquising his research in the vagaries of obscure references. We know that he was fascinated by the ongoing research of his time into seconds pendulums and their relation to degrees of the Earths equatorial circumference and its offsets, the earths mass, gravity and even fluxions or calculus of the moons orbital motion as relates to tides and other gravitational attractions.
Newtons idea of fluxions is to some extent a Platonic dialectic. He seeks to add motion to rest. With that idea in mind he could combine the coordiates of space; length, width, and breadth with the coordinates of time and get a curve that describes an orbit, and then factor out a gravitational attraction as a function of the orbit.
If my response answered your question good; if not then I note that the passages were commented out rather than simply reverted which seems a good way to make the article shorter but still leave the information available to people who are interested in such calculations. Rktect 12:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rktect, can you point out from where you are drawing your conclusions? Is there a piece of Newton's own work to support the concepts you are attributing to him? The only works by Newton that directly concern the Temple of Solomon that I can find appear to be descriptive accounts of the structure. There is no reference to mass, gravity, fluxions, etc., within these works. I wouldn't doubt some connection, but is there something we can cite?Trippz 08:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temple of Solomon

Can someone please tell me where the information on this section is coming from? Its an interesting topic and I am not at all surprised to learn of Newton's interest in it, nor am I arguing its factuality, I just cannot find a source to support Newton's connection at this time. The sources that are cited are VERY scarce on information regarding Isaac Newton. In fact, the Villalpando citation source material only makes one very short reference about Newton:

Isaac Newton used the works of Villalpando in his architectural studies.

This is the exact same statement used in the article. That's it! Where is the rest of this section coming from? I'd like to get my hands on some of this information and assist in re-formating the section to meet WP:MOS, it reads a little rough in its present state, however, I don't think the section is not without some merit and deserves more exploration. Trippz 19:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juan published works in geometry and architecture and also interpreted inscriptions both in Rome and Jerusalem along with Jerome Prado; when the latter died he inherited Prado's unfinished commentary on Ezekiel. Juan's mathematical contributions center on proportion and harmony and follow the architectural usage of Euclid. He produced 21 original propositions on the center of gravity and the line of direction. These can be found in the collection of Father Marin Mersenne, Synopsis mathematica (1626). Isaac Newton used the works of Villalpando in his architectural studies.

From the same article

Villalpando had been compelled to face in determining the form and dimensions of the Temple, his design was simplicity itself. According to the book of Genesis, Noah's Ark was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 high. Much, of course, depended on the precise value of the cubit. Origen had claimed that it was equivalent to six Roman feet, which the Jesuit scholar, Athanasius Kircher dismissed as absurd since it would have made the Ark inordinately vast. Villalpando had maintained that it was about two and a half feet, basing his claim on the authority of Vitruvius, whereas Kircher, likewise arguing from Vitruvius, had come to the conclusion that it was one and a half feet.

Its the study of the value of the cubit as preserved in architecture and architectural writing as related to proportion and harmony that was blowing Newton's mind. Villalpando had been interested in the proportions of Solomon's temple. The relationships are not quite so simple as they may be perceived at first glance. In particular the dimensions of the brazen sea as metaphor for the earth and its size and mass which relate to its gravity.
My understanding is that the bulk of Newton's work on this remains unpublished so what we have for access to it is the odd description of a lot for auction or mentions in TV shows and books that are of the nature of the quote above.
Trippz its clear that you are interested in the subject, but as you say the sources other than Newton and Newton both are very scarce. I did come on Newton's book on Graves Pyramid Inch, and his assessment that there is evidence of using the earth as a standard of measure in antiquity.
Another source tracks Newton's interest in measures of a pendulums period.
Tracking down his research on the seconds penduluum is somewhat obscure and complicated, but also fascinating. Newton was interested in Gravity and knew that that one way to measure Gravity is with a pendulum, because in his time the seconds pendulum and its relation to gravity and measures of the earth was a very hot topic.
As you swing a pendulum, gravity keeps trying to pull it back toward the center of mass which in our case lies at the center of the Earth. This knowledge results in the old carpenters trick of establishing plumb for a building with a plumbob. The longer you make the pendulum the longer it takes to complete its swing and the easier it is to measure. A penduluum moves fastest at the bottom of its swing and slowest at the ends, which is a measure of its kinetic energy and potential energy. The period of a pendulum is proportional to the square root of its length and F=ma where F is the force of gravity trying to pull the mass of the plumbbob back toward a straight line to the center of the earth. For a pendulum of length L and mass m, the component of the force of gravity pulling the pendulum back toward the center of its swing is

Fc = -mg sin θ

The minus sign means that when we pull the mass away from the center gravity pulls it back toward the center.
Where mg is the mass of the pendulum times the acceleration of gravity, this is the total gravitational force also known as the weight.
θ is the angle measured from the bottom of the swing, when the pendulum is at the bottom of its swing θ = 0.
If we write Newton's law [1]
F = ma where a is acceleration = d2x/dt2
then substitute we get
d2x/dt2 = F/m = -mg sin θ
When the angle, θ , is measured in radians and the angle is small, less than 0.1 rad then we can make the approximation that sin θ = 0.
Now the angle θ is approximately x/L
So,
d2x/dt2 = -g x/L
This differential equation has the well known solution
x = A cos wt
where w = (g/L)0.5
This is a sinusoidal oscillation with amplitude A and period T = 2π/w = 2π (L/g)0.5
Since the value of π is a factor its probably germane to mention where Newton's value comes from.
Newton knows that Galileo used the Roman pes or foot to measure the rate at which a ball accelerates as it rolls down a ramp. He gets this from Buritanni (an old Egyptologist) whose value for PI is slightly off as he uses the Roman approximation that PI can be expressed as a unit fraction of 3 '8 '64.

When the Royal Society (of which Newton was a member) was established in 1662, one of the first tasks it sets to itself was that of determining the length of the pendulum that beats the second; to this purpose John Evelyn, one of the founders, in his trip to Italy, not only took the usual measurernents of standards of the Roman foot, but also of the braccio of Florence and of the braccio of Bologna, used respectively by Galileo and Riccioli in the calculation of the pendulum.

But under the influence of the Academie des Sciences and the Academie des Inscriptions, established in the same decade as the Royal Society, the matter of fixed standard was settled in France by reforming the pied de roi, so as to make it 12/11 of the Roman pes.

[Galileo and Riccoli]

"Riccioli conducted free fall experiments in which he dropped balls of different weights from different heights. Riccioli found that the heavier ball actually does land a bit sooner, but that the time to fall is not directly proportional to weight. His results confirmed Galileo's claim that weight is only a secondary factor, but showed that weight had more of an effect than Galileo believed it would.
Riccioli also provided evidence for the 1, 3, 5, ¼ progression; his values were 15 Roman feet in the first second, 60 feet in the second, 135 in the third, and 240 in the fourth."
Newton (January 4, 1643 – March 31, 1728) has studied the Work of [Gabriel Mouton] (1618 – September 28, 1694) and others and recognizes that their values follow the Classical Greek and Roman sacred geometry incorporated in architectural design, ie; what we call the Greek Orders.
His 1670 book, the Observationes diametrorum solis et lunae apparentium, came to form the basis of what was to become the metric system hundred years later. Based on the the measurements of the size of the Earth conducted by Riccioli of Bologna (at 373,000 Roman feet to the degree), Mouton proposed a decimal system of measurement based on the circumference of the Earth, explaining the advantages of a system based on nature. Mouton's proposed virga, was essentially the same as the French "toise".
In 1670 Abbe Mouton suggested a primary length standard equal to 1 minute of arc on a great circle of the earth. For this basic length Mouton offered the name milliare. This was to be subdivided by seven sub units with each one to be 1/10 the length of the one preceeding or
  • 1 Milliare = 1 minute of arc = 1.85 km
  • 1 Centuria = .1 minute of arc = 185 m
  • 1 Decuria = .01 minutes of arc = 18.5 m
  • 1 Virga = .001 minutes of arc = 1.85 m
  • 1 Virgula = .0001 minutes of arc = 185 mm
  • 1 Decima = .00001 minute of arc = 18.5 mm
  • 1 Centesima = .000001 minute of arc = 1.85 mm
  • 1 Millesima = .0000001 minute of arc = .185 mm
Mouton apparently noted the decimal factors
  • 1 Milliare = 10 stadia of 6000 pous = 1.85 km
  • 1 Centuria = 1 Greek stadion of 600 pous = 185 m
  • 1 Centuria = 1 Roman Stadium of 625 pes = 185 m
  • 1 Centuria = 1 English furlong of 625 fote = 185 m
  • 1 Decuria = 10 Greek orquia = 60 pous = 18.5 m
  • 1 Virga = 1 Greek orquia or fathom = 6 pous 1.85 m
  • 1 Virgula = 10 Roman digitus = 2 hands 185 mm
  • 1 Decima = 1 Roman digitus = 18.5 mm
inherent in earlier sexigesimal systems
Mouton's work relates time, space and gravity as well as connecting ancient units to the concept by identity. Consequently in 1670 we have a degree of the earth's great circle is 111 km but its also 69.17 statute miles of the newly defined statute mile of 1593 and 365,240 feet of that mile.
Mouton pointed out that a standard seconds pendulum could define its own length. Its period is inversely proportional to the sgrt of the gravitational intensity or gravitational acceleration when the pendulum is swinging.
In Moutons time the second was thought to be a new invention. The division of time into a second or second minute was a result of the work of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) and his recent (from Mouton's perspective) investigations of gravitational attraction as he found it useful to have such a division to time a ball rolling down a slope.
Mountons investigations now related time, space and gravity.
Newton realized that the classical measures preserved in the proportions of the Greek orders of architecture, the Mia Chillioi of the Greeks and the Mille Passus of the Romans were tied by Herodotus, Vitruvus, and Ptolomy to the Egyptian Itrw and Aroura so the antiquity of the knowledge base that had been lost in the Dark Ages was extreme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rktect (talk • contribs) 14:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have modified the section to include original information, though did remove some small remarks that I cannot find sources for. However, I feel the core information is still in there. Hope it relfected appropriately. --Trippz (talk) 13:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Physics 3rd ed., Paul A. Tipler, Worth Publishers, p 382-384 Pendulums, uses calculus.

Wikified!

I believe the article has been wikified. Removed copywrite infringement, but the Temple of Solomon section still needs work. Though Newton did write descriptively about The Temple of Solomon, I cannot locate any information to support some of the claims in that section. Replaced Wikifi tag with cleanup until resolved or the section is removed.--Trippz 12:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have put so much energy into editing this I hesitate to attempt to contribute, but if you can be specific about what questions you have relating to Newtons interest in the Temple of Solomon I will do what I can to find better cites. In very general terms he sees it as both a series of math problems presented as unstated riddles and scribal instruction in how to ask and answer questions.
Starting with the describtion of the brazen sea, one cannot imagine Newton not engaging in calculation of its volume. Anyone who has actually done so rapidly discovers that the dimensions are given in cubits and there are many different cubits to choose from.
The volume of the brazen sea is a problem requiring the use of a formula which incorporates PI, so after discovering what cubit is used we need to discover what value for PI is used. Once we have PI we can then apply that to the dimensions of the columns and once we have the columns and their capitals we can go on to look at the length and width and height of the rooms as clarifying an approach to the the classical Greek problems of squaring the circle doubling the cube and trisecting an angle.
Newton would have treated all of that as an amuse bouche. What he was going for was gravity, and I think he may have perceived some of the rooms as giving the length and swing of a pendulum Metric which determines the mass and gravity of the planet as discussed above. Rktect 21:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe some cites to elaborate on some of the concepts like "He noted that the Temples's measurements given in the Bible math problems related to solutions for π ". What are the "bible math problems" you are referring to? Just the measurement of a cubit, or is there more? I think I ran into something along those lines, where Newton sets forth a "Newton Cubit" (though he didn't call it that of course), but I have misplaced the reference at the moment. Got a source for the info? I haven't fully absorbed the Temple of Solomon section in the "Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, but does Newton ever go into calculations in that work? It seems pretty much just descriptive, though he does make a lot of cubit references. Maybe he's relying on another work that he assumes the reader should know? Like I said, considering Newton's unarguable interest in numbers, I have no doubt he would start pulling the architecture apart into equations, and perhaps as you mention apply it to gravity, but I can't find a good source to actually show him doing it. I'm sure he did, but what can we cite? I'm just hoping to avoid an WP:OR claim by a reader. You are spot on about finding good cites considering the nature of the material. Its funny, tracking down Newton's more esoteric research is like tracking a mad genius by finding the scribble pads that he has crumbled up and tossed aside. Don't hesitate to edit what I've written if you feel it needs it. I just came in and the article was looking very sparse. Considering the amount of Newton's own writings and the fact that more is being electronically published each day, I figured the article deserved some more meat. Besides, its an interesting topic and with a bit of work I think we might get this one to FA status. The 2060 media hype shows that there is enough public interest in his occult studies to warrant FA consideration if we beef it up a bit. By the way, do you think we can use the Temple images from Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended without breaking any copyright? It was published long enough ago to be in public domain I would think. Article could use some more pics. Just an idea. --Trippz 05:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We would be verging on WP:OR except that there is a new book out on this. Isaac Newton, the last Sorcerer. Because most of Newtons work on this isn't published we would have had to find out which museums and collections have it and then get them to let us look at it. There is a new exhibit of exactly that in Jerusalem.

Even if we or the authors and exhibitions who are finding and presenting the material get past that we still need to recognize what we are looking at. Most of the language that Newton uses tends to be Alchemical, theosophical or mathematical with terms like fluxion used to refer to calculus as mathematics in four dimensions. Most of the writing on this is in the realm of pyramid idiocy with the writers pro and con equally disinclined to be reasonable. There are however a lot of pics that can be licensed s published in the US prior to the 1920's

Newton

Exhibit in Jerusalem

Among those intrigued by the incredible accuracy of the Pyramid's construction was the great scientist and mathematician Sir Isaac Newton. Attemping to formulate his famous law of gravity, Newton needed to know the diameter of the Earth. However, in the 1600's no measurement was accurate enough, especially since Newton theorized that the Earth's spin would cause an equatorial bulge.

Having heard legends claiming that knowledge of the Earth, the past, and the future were contained in the Pyramid, Among those intrigued by the incredible accuracy of the Pyramid's construction was the great scientist and mathematician Sir Isaac Newton.

Attemping to formulate his famous law of gravity, Newton needed to know the diameter of the Earth. However, in the 1600's no measurement was accurate enough, especially since Newton theorized that the Earth's spin would cause an equatorial bulge. Having heard legends claiming that knowledge of the Earth, the past, and the future were contained in the Pyramid, Newton set out to investigate. Newton set out to investigate.

Newton wrote a book exploring the Pyramid inch based on the work of Graves. The comments on that drown out almost everything about his investigations of the measures of Solomons temple. I'm interested in the math problems and measures but feel like I need a shower after wading through the religious comments, the pseudo science comments, and the rather far fetched speculations and conjectures.

Sir Isaac Newton, in his Dissertation on Cubits, claimed that the sacred cubit of the Israelites approximately equaled 25 British inches, while the Egyptian cubit be assured 20.68, and the Greek and Roman cubit 18.24, British inches.

Among those intrigued by the incredible accuracy of the Pyramid's construction was the great scientist and mathematician Sir Isaac Newton. Attemping to formulate his famous law of gravity, Newton needed to know the diameter of the Earth. However, in the 1600's no measurement was accurate enough, especially since Newton theorized that the Earth's spin would cause an equatorial bulge. Having heard legends claiming that knowledge of the Earth, the past, and the future were contained in the Pyramid, Newton set out to investigate.

Lets do a little looking and see what we find.

Rktect 02:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newton's Famous "Diamond" Fire

The article includes reference to the story of a lab fire in which documents were destroyed. This anecdote may be apocryphal (see, apple falling from tree) though nobody knows for sure. There are some sources in "Isaac Newton: Eighteenth Century Perspectives" by Alfred Rupert Hall that indicate Newton never owned a pet at all. However, the story of Diamond the dog starting the lab fire has soundly found its way into the Newtonian mythos. I don't have a problem with it being in the article per say, but is there a source indicating that the material allegedly destroyed was in fact occult related, or at least truly may have been? I only bring it up because its one of those stories that pops up whenever there is speculation regarding Newton's work. Example: Newton wrote about aliens, but it was burned in a fire. Newton could turn lead to gold, but the notes were burnt in the fire. Newton cured cancer, discovered Pluto, solved The Bible Code, but it burnt in a fire. etc, etc. I thought of maybe including a whole section on "Diamond the dog" and the phenomenon of the "lost work" which was consumed in the alleged fire, but I'm not sure it should be here. Interesting topic, I could probably construct something, but should it go here? Maybe. It doesn't bring up "hidden knowledge" per say, or directly relate to Newton's occult practices, but it does address contemporary occultism in the since of the possibility of "lost work" related to Newton himself. May be a worthy addition, but I don't want to tackle it if the consensus feels it is outside the scope of the subject material. What do you think? Feedback appreciated. Trippz (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, just found Diamond (dog) --Trippz (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist bias detected

"Distinctions taken for granted today – such as between the natural and supernatural, or between science and pseudoscience" is not a good sentence. It contrasts natural between supernatural and compares it to science/pseudoscience, obviously implying that pseudoscience is rubbish (true) and (belief in) supernatural too (which is not). This is a religious statement, which does not belong to an objective encyclopedia. 86.50.9.167 (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I read that particular section that way, but at the same time I don't know how to accomplish what seems to be the purpose of the sentence by rewording it. Personally I don't see any atheistic bias in those words. The term supernatural can be applied to a wide variety of concepts that don't have a particularly religious connection, but of course I suppose it would be possible that some people might attach it to religious aspects as well. Can't be for sure, but I think the purpose the contributor was going for was to address the differences in scientific understanding that exist between Newtons lifetime and our own. Seventeenth century Europe was in fact a very superstitious period, which I don't think can really be argued, and many of their supernatural beliefs were in no way particularly connected to religious belief but yet could still be considered supernatural (Classical Spontaneous Generation comes to mind, amongst many others like witchcraft and black toads). If you have an idea of a way to present the differences in world view between now and then, let's hear it, might be a way to improve that statement. --Trippz (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that the original sentence linked everything supernatural to pseudoscience, and pseudoscience equals to rubbish (in most people's minds). It follows immediately that all supernatural things are equated to rubbish, including almost all religions (not sure what kinds are there) and superstitions. That was too vague/broad terming, but now it is better, thank you. 86.50.9.167 (talk) 08:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newton and freemasonry

I don't see why freemasonry should even be noted on this page. If the paragraph begins with "There is no verifiable record of Newton being a Freemason" and ends with "However, ultimately there is no evidence to directly connect Newton to Freemasonry" then the whole stuff in between has no meaning. Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia with verifiable/reliable sources, and there's no evidence that he was a freemason, then it shouldn't be mentioned in this article. Groundless speculations just don't fit for a reputable encyclopedia. Including it "because secret societies are cool/exciting" is not a good reason. 86.50.9.167 (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your viewpoint, why support a negative, right? However, the information was included simply because there are numerous allegations that Newton was a Freemason throughout popular culture and literature. Though the information supports a negative, it does help to dispel rumor and conjecture about an aspect of Isaac Newton that is regularly brought up regarding his occult practices. There are in fact whole books solely written as an attempt to uncover Newton's role in Freemasonry, so I personally think it is a topic that is worthy of addressing in an article of this nature. Also, the Freemasonry section is actually a part of the larger "Secret Society" section. Newton was also not a member of the Priory of Sion, however, considering the popularity of Da Vinci Code and the countless knock-off books and theories, Newton is often lumped into various conspiracy theories and half-baked sensationalisms that attempt to attach him to various groups. We should not hide from common misconceptions, but actually attempt to clarify them. So basically that particular section was designed to clarify the current knowledge about his standing within a particular group, nothing more. Part of the job of a encyclopedic article is to also recognize the aspects of a subject that are often misunderstood or misinformed and provide a more accurate picture to the reader. --Trippz (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, now I understand, keep the paragraph if it is needed. At first it just seemed unfair to label a person with freemasonry, and "there's no evidence" at the start and end of the paragraph just seemed to me that this section is only libel towards Newton. You should consider how a person with no particular interest in conspiracy theories or Da Vinci Code (I as an example) would react to that paragraph. 86.50.9.167 (talk) 08:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eurocentrism?

"Newton's chronological writing is Eurocentric, with the earliest records focusing upon Greece, Anatolia, Egypt, and the Levant." Why does this exhibit Eurocentrism? Anatolia, Egypt, and the Levant are all outside Europe. In any case, the accusation of is inappropriate. Depending which way you look at it, to accuse a 17th century Englishman of Eurocentrism is either anachronistic or redundant. Treharne (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Anatolia, Egypt, the Levant are not in what we call modern Europe today, but the term was intended to indicate that Newton never mentions civilizations of Asia, Africa, the New World, etc. None of these places are included in his chronology, though he most certainly knew of them, thus suggesting Eurocentrism. Eurocentric history often includes historical connections to those above mentioned (near east) places, such as Greek and Egyptian myth. Their history is a strong part of foundational European history, as well as the Christian Bible which has its origins there (one which Newton uses as a primary source). As for redundancy applied to Englishmen, I'd make the argument that there were many Englishmen living in various places throughout the world at that time who perhaps did not share a world view similar to Newton. I wouldn't call it redundant at all to apply this term to a single scientist, and thereby lump all 17th century Englishmen into Newton's group. Finally, using the term Eurocentric as an "accusation" is not the intention, nor do I personally see why using Eurocentric is somehow a bad thing! It is simply a term, meaning "Centered around Europe", I think you're reading far too much into it and perhaps taking offense to a perfectly valid term without considering its meaning. His historical chronology is Eurocentric, but that wouldn't separate him from various historian from other continents who focus solely upon their history from their own point of views. --Trippz (talk) 12:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the intent, "Eurocentric" does sound pejorative, at least in 2020. If you must keep the term, maybe you could qualify it so the sentence is not immediately self-contradictory, e.g., "Newton's chronological writing is largely Eurocentric, despite some of the earliest records focusing upon Anatolia, Egypt, and the Levant."Happy temporizer (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 5 is down

Resolved

Reference 5 is down —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.80.215.185 (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have switched the reference to use an archived version of the page. Keith D (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting to rename article

This page should really be renamed "Isaac Newton's esoteric studies." The term occult doesn't really include stuff like freemasonry or biblical interpretation whereas everything listed in this article does full under the academic heading of "esotericism"72.89.142.128 (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mede

Mede's unsuccessful predictions might have inspired Newton's pitching the date so far forward, to 2060. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.38.222 (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has often been pointed out that Newton's denominational opinions are typical for the country and the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.55.83 (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Newton used the plural, "fancifull men", and seems to have been referring to predictions made by many others, not only Mede.
As Newton noted, the failed predictions discredited the Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.38.222 (talk) 11:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Newton and Alchemy? According OTHERS and not according Newton

Checking the article Isaac_Newton and Isaac Newton's occult studies I have noticed that the rumors of Newton being a "magician" and dedicating much of his studies to "alchemy" have been mainly based in ASSUMPTIONS of authors that pretended to relationate Newton and Alchemy. First it is needed to see the difference between chemistry and esoteric alchemy. I think that this field must be checked accurately, because it's still considered under the category of "mystery" and "enigma".

It seems like this rumors began because of John Maynard Keynes writings who was supposed to acquire some Newton's writings. According to the article, Keynes said "Newton was not the first of the age of reason: He was the last of the magicians." and then states Newton's interest in alchemy cannot be isolated from his contributions to science". That is of course, just Keynes opinion, and i think is not encyclopedic. One cannot classify all the works of Isaac Newton under an assumption or opinion, suggesting that all the contributions that he made to science owes its debt to alchemy, and in this case that's given as a fact.

One more: Here in the article in the section "Optics" it says "Modern scholarship has revealed that Newton's analysis and resynthesis of white light owes a debt to corpuscular alchemy." I think that is not encyclopedic again definitely and need to be checked. The correct word instead "revealed" would be "suggested". In this case the "modern scholarship" is nothing but W. R. Newman opinion, so also would be more accurate to say that "W. R. Newman suggests that Newton's analysis..." and not write it as a fact.

Why so worried about this? Because I haven't seen one single quote that comes directly from Newton's works that demonstrate that He was directly involved in alchemy, so it must matter that the views of Newton in alchemy are based in personal INTERPRETATIONS of his writings and not in Newton's own words. The fact that chemistry language in that age was very similar to alchemic one, does not mean that he was strictly involved in alchemy. An also, just because he was interested in natural and materials sciences and metals, it does not mean that he was all into alchemy.

One caannot say that "Newton's vies" on this or that "were because of" this or that unless he said it himself. Otherwise it's just a guessing.

One more: In the article it says "Much of Newton's writing on alchemy may have been lost in a fire in his laboratory, so the true extent of his work in this area may have been larger than is currently known." This, again, is not accurate in anyway. As far as I know, there is no historical evidence of a "fire" in its laboratory, which many biographers and historians doubt. So that claim is making an assumption again based on non-proved claims.

I have checked sources like "the Chymistry of Newton" a website run by William R. Newman proffesor of Indiana University, and its articles and all their "browse manuscripts" are taken mainly from M.S. Keynes writings. This rumors were also promoted by mainstream media such like the New York Times, and very few have stopped and thought about the fidelity and accuracy of all this claims. No wonder why this rumors have been spread by worth of mouth. Other mystical books have been published also of course, but it's still something that seems to be no accurate source. Even many of the articles made by University History professors are made up and based in assumptions on hypothesis of what Newton ("probably") "would have believed" or "would have meant" or "would have MADE", without any direct source from Isaac Newton's OWN works.

One more: It says in the article: "Regardless of his own membership status, Newton was a known associate of many individuals who themselves have often been labeled as members of various esoteric groups. It is unclear if these associations were a result of his being a well established and prominently publicized scholar" and again, there is no source nor reference.

No wonder that Newton never published any "alchemical work", though lately there have been some people that have promoted the theory of Newton seeking the philosopher's stone, that claim is not proved, and it still based in interpretations that can be fallible.

IF we DO take into account ONLY Newton's own words and works...? He never defined himself as an alchemist. Anyone who talk about Newton should think about that, I think. The same happens with freemasonry. Just because there are thousands of rumors and thousands of websites saying that Newton was a freemason, it doesn't mean that he was. After a man dies, people start making myths and stories about them that they were into this or that they were into that, and the worst part is when the ones who hear that start spreading that information without even really know if that is true or false, objective or subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goose friend (talk • contribs) 17:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goose friend User talk:Goose friend 12:48 11 June 2012

I would suggest reading some of William Newman's work before deriding it as the made up suppositions of a historian. Newman is currently annotating Newton's manuscripts to make them more accessible to everyone. He cites Newton extensively throughout his works, and bases his conclusions study and recreation of Newton's work. There is in fact a large body of scholarship on the study of Newton's alchemy, again all based in his own words. The fact that you don't see some of those words in this article is merely the sign that this article still has room for improvement. Kirwanfan (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Postel

Christian Heinrich Postel did not compose operas, as the article says, - he wrote libretti. Source? Which opera composed by whom? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald Tablets

I can't believe that everyone missed that he translated the Emerald Tablets of Hermes / Thoth. It's even mentioned on the wikipedia article Emerald_Tablets Netdragon (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Isaac Newton's occult studies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemy was dangerous

He needed to be discrete about alchemy since:

  • alchemy was a vector of heretical ideas and mobs were lynching heretics;
  • alchemy provided technical knowledge about counterfeiting money.

So, alchemy was considered dangerous. Source: Newton: The Dark Heretic, BBC, 2003. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How Is Any of This Occult?

"Newton produced many works that would now be classified as occult studies. These works explored chronology, alchemy, and Biblical interpretation"

How are Biblical interpretation and "chronology" (estimating when past events happened) occult? Alchemy can be "occult", but by itself it is just an attempt at using chemistry for specific goals (e.g. making gold).

The complaints from 2004 and 2007 about this article being poorly sourced are just as true today as they were then. It's a wonder this article hasn't been deleted.

Mosgielian (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, Newton was an occultist pur sang. He did not spill the beans about it because it were dangerous. See Newton: The Dark Heretic, BBC, 2003. Hint: it's on YouTube and it's high-quality scholarship, several full professors get interviewed. For Newton alchemy meant:
  • what we now call chemistry;
  • the mystical side of it.
So, for him, as an alchemist, mysticism and chemistry were an inseparable whole.
Newton was a sworn enemy of the Newtonian (i.e. mechanistic) view of the world. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And to further explain why alchemy was dangerous:
  • it offered the needed technical knowledge in order to counterfeit money (most alchemists ended their careers as money counterfeiters);
  • it was an intellectual vector of heretical ideas, in an age wherein heresy meant being lynched by the rabid masses of heresy-hunters;
  • the boundary between what we now call chemistry and witchcraft was very vague (it wasn't properly defined, so a chemist could have been very easily mistaken for a witch or wizard, and therefore lynched). tgeorgescu (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lede needs attention

Doesn't summarise the article. Why so much focus on Maynard Keynes' opinion? 94.9.146.6 (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What cause the fire to happen that burned most of his alchemy notes? How did the temple of Solomon impact his alchemy skills?Khyhvc (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AMORC

Newton as member of AMORC is as true as Newton was a Mormon (Mormons do baptize the dead and count them as members). So, yup, you might have guessed, Einstein was a Mormon, too. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge given that sources treat the topics of occult studies as distinct. Klbrain (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just proposed merging into Religious views of Isaac Newton and shortened to the well-sourced elements. It was initially created from the 1911 Britannica article and we have better information and sourcing in the current Isaac Newton article. – SJ + 14:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merge. It'll need to be done selectively, of course. XOR'easter (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
agree with merge proposal, though only several sections are sourced and can be merged to the main article. Artem.G (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I got some time to read the article, and it mostly looks like OR. Most of them are not "occult" by any definition of the word. Some are just Bible interpretation, some are Alchemy, this section calls Principia an occult study. "Newton's chronology" can be called "occult", but that's quite a stretch. "Newton and the Rosicrucians" is almost completely unsourced. What do you think can be salvaged for the proposed merge? Artem.G (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For Rosicrucians I've found this article Newton and the Rosicrucian Enlightenment, some more possible sources are What Happened to Occult Qualities in the Scientific Revolution?, Occult Scientific Mentalities, Essay Review: Revisions of Science and Magic: From Paracelsus to Newton: Magic and the Making of Modern Science, Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance, ‘Though their causes be not yet discover’d’: occult principles in the making of Newton’s natural philosophy, Handling "Occult Qualities" in the Scientific Revolution. Artem.G (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, on the grounds that the idea of Newton's occult studies is well-established as a theme in academic research of his work, and hence warrants separate discussion. My view is that the WP:SUMMARY format work here, with this page linked with a main template at Religious views of Isaac Newton#Other beliefs. Klbrain (talk) 03:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion of OR and unencyclopedic tone issues

I've flagged the article for WP:OR and unencyclopedic tone issues. This has been mentioned by several editors previously on this talk page but the issues haven't been corrected despite many years passing, and are quite numerous throughout the article, thus I'm flagging. If I've reviewed the talk page discussions accurately, these issues seem to date from the early days of the article. I suspect that additional sourcing to support unreferenced claims, and editing the essay-like writing tone into encyclopedic style would fix the problems. — Goffman82 (talk) 23:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies&oldid=1230657957"