Dante's Inferno describing Gravity 1300

[Opus Magnus]

Yeah, so, Newton discovered the math to gravity.  But this math had been played with before, he basically just added a squaring to it.  But, gravity has been known long before this, and so has the world being round. So, it's kind of misleading when it's said Newton discovered the theory of gravity, when he just improved on the mathematics of it.

[stereologist]

7 minutes ago, Opus Magnus said:

Yeah, so, Newton discovered the math to gravity.  But this math had been played with before, he basically just added a squaring to it.  But, gravity has been known long before this, and so has the world being round. So, it's kind of misleading when it's said Newton discovered the theory of gravity, when he just improved on the mathematics of it.

Remember that he also realized that it controlled the solar system. That is an important discovery. Using that force and his 3 laws of motion he showed that the paths of the celestial objects could be determined. This links talks about the 3 laws.

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/newton.html

[lightly]

22 hours ago, lightly said:

Which makes me wonder about the linguistic roots  of the word grave....and what those earlier words might have meant.

something like down? Or earth ?

  And In what language did "grave" first appear?   Greek? Latin? Roman?

who knows ...just wondering.   Jaylemurph might know ,if anyone does.

I made this post earlier and realized immediately afterward that I had listed "Roman" as a language?

someone correct my correction if I'm wrong....but I believe Romans ,in Rome, primarily spoke Latin, and later on, Greek as well?

Jaylemurph was kind enough ,long ago,  to give me a brief informative tutorial on the origin of Latin and how it became the language of Rome.  

[Jarocal]

5 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Maybe he waers all those bandages as a safety measure for when he have had a little too much to drink ?

Remember you need a lot of liquid when you are a dry mummy.

You do realize a 500ml I.V. bag is roughly a pint if memory serves me. Silly metric measurement system. We should go back to cubits, ephahs, and stones.

[Swede]

42 minutes ago, Jarocal said:

You do realize a 500ml I.V. bag is roughly a pint if memory serves me. Silly metric measurement system. We should go back to cubits, ephahs, and stones.

And, of course, Whitworth.

.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

1 hour ago, Jarocal said:

You do realize a 500ml I.V. bag is roughly a pint if memory serves me. Silly metric measurement system. We should go back to cubits, ephahs, and stones.

Like I allways say:

[Jarocal]

50 minutes ago, Swede said:

And, of course, Whitworth.

.

Never been fond of that model. Too much wasted space with the hip roof and the interior is not open enough for my taste. 

https://www.dongardner.com/house-plan/1131/the-whitworth/

Edited November 9, 2017 by Jarocal
Cladking translations are from the natural language

[Swede]

20 hours ago, Jarocal said:

Never been fond of that model. Too much wasted space with the hip roof and the interior is not open enough for my taste. 

https://www.dongardner.com/house-plan/1131/the-whitworth/

Chuckle! Yes, given your professional background, one can understand why such a style would be rather beneath you standards and talents.

My admittedly rather vague reference was, of course, referring to the British thread/fastener standard. For those not experienced with such, a questionable delight at best. This is particularly true during the "cross-over" period of the early-mid 1970s.

.

[Jarocal]

3 hours ago, Swede said:

Chuckle! Yes, given your professional background, one can understand why such a style would be rather beneath you standards and talents.

My admittedly rather vague reference was, of course, referring to the British thread/fastener standard. For those not experienced with such, a questionable delight at best. This is particularly true during the "cross-over" period of the early-mid 1970s.

.

Threaded fasteners? Nay good sir, we shall return to proper joinery methods. One piece rivets properly peened with a rivet bracker for metal and methods such as rabbeting, dovetailing, or mortise/tenon along with dowels in wood.

[jaylemurph]

On 11/8/2017 at 2:44 PM, lightly said:

I made this post earlier and realized immediately afterward that I had listed "Roman" as a language?

someone correct my correction if I'm wrong....but I believe Romans ,in Rome, primarily spoke Latin, and later on, Greek as well?

Jaylemurph was kind enough ,long ago,  to give me a brief informative tutorial on the origin of Latin and how it became the language of Rome.  

Yep. Romans spoke Latin. It comes from the name of the ancient region Latium where the city of Rome is located. It was one of several Italic languages in the area (like Volscian or Oscan), but as Rome's political power grew, their language became dominant and the others died out. From Rome's earliest days, businessmen, scholars and politicians would have spoken Greek. As Roman power grew in the East, a lot of the land it conquered already spoke Greek as a lingua franca. After Diocletian split the empire into halves and made the old Greek colony Byzantium the eastern capital, more people in the empire would have spoken Greek. By the end of the empire, Greek was the day-to-day language in the East. (Although -- and I think this is funny -- all those Greek speaking people called themselves Romanoi.

Well into the Middles Ages, the spoken language in the Western part of the Empire was called Romans, even though it was already becoming what we call now French, Spanish or Italian. (The idea of nation-states each with their own language wouldn't happen for a long time -- at least 500 years).

--Jaylemurph

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

On 09/11/2017 at 7:18 AM, jaylemurph said:

To be fair, gravity was invented by Our Past Basset Masters. I'm not sure how things worked before they did that, but we can all be thankful they did. 

--Jaylemurph 

LIES.

it was invented by the Felis Regis, who realised in their infinite wisdom that knocking things off tables was boring if they just sort of floated there rather then crashing to the ground dramatically. 

[lightly]

Thanks a lot Jaylemurph, for the informative and interesting response.  It's great when knowledgable members share these sorts of gems with the rest of us.

[Jarocal]

2 hours ago, lightly said:

Thanks a lot Jaylemurph, for the informative and interesting response.  It's great when knowledgable members share these sorts of gems with the rest of us.

While factual information is great, it does not retain the majestic nature of say a cold water co2 Geyser powered funicular or an island such as Greenland merrily hopscotching it's way North from just outside the Mediterranean. I also find the idea of Pharaohs along with their royal entourage indulging in wild parties involving beer and cocaine amusing. Nothing farfetched like a centuries long Templar or illuminati conspiracy, something believable...

[Harte]

4 hours ago, Jarocal said:

While factual information is great, it does not retain the majestic nature of say a cold water co2 Geyser powered funicular or an island such as Greenland merrily hopscotching it's way North from just outside the Mediterranean.

Mincing. MINCING!

How many times I gotta tell ya?

Harte

[Duke Wellington]

On ‎07‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 10:22 PM, Opus Magnus said:

I just read the Divine Comedy of Dante's Inferno.  I noticed in the last few chapters he describes the force of gravity.  Also, in it, he describes the world as round, not flat, as they go through the center of the earth and end up on a different hemisphere and different time zone.  This was in 1300th century.  Dante, being an educated man, knew these things, but in school we are taught that Columbus proved the world round, and Newton discovered gravity in the 1700's.

https://scientificgems.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/science-in-dantes-inferno/

This is one thing that causes a lot of debate and confusion between people.  Not in science, but in the history of science, and how long we have known certain things, and who really discovered them.

The Bible does not state that the world is flat or that Earth is at the centre of the universe. These are both fallacies for which there is no supporting evidence in religion.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

11 minutes ago, Harte said:

Mincing. MINCING!

How many times I gotta tell ya?

Harte

Don't listen to him ! Of course Greenland minced, afterall who have ever heard of an island hopscotching. Thats just silly.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

8 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

The Bible does not state that the world is flat or that Earth is at the centre of the universe. These are both fallacies for which there is no supporting evidence in religion.

To be fair it has is no supporting evidence for the Earth being round either. So just because the bible doesn't say the Earth is flat, it doesn't really help us determine what the writers of the bible thought. They could so easily have put in a reference to the Earth being round if that is what they though, yet they didn't. So in the end the bible doesn't really help us here either way. Same deal about the universe.

Edited November 10, 2017 by Noteverythingisaconspiracy

[Swede]

22 hours ago, Jarocal said:

Threaded fasteners? Nay good sir, we shall return to proper joinery methods. One piece rivets properly peened with a rivet bracker for metal and methods such as rabbeting, dovetailing, or mortise/tenon along with dowels in wood.

Indeed! A gentleman after my own heart. One could then discuss the subtleties of counter-sinking the bone/antler scales prior to their attachment to a hand-forged blade with annealed brass pins. Or the remarkable functionality and durability of wood-pinned structures as opposed to ferric attachment methods, as witnessed by still existing structures.

We may, however, be veering somewhat away from Dante's Inferno (!). While likely to attract notably limited interest, discussions of technologies not restricted to splitting and hauling limestone blocks may be of interest to some. And this from one who is more than a passing student of lithic technology.

. 

[jmccr8]

2 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

To be fair it has is no supporting evidence for the Earth being round either. So just because the bible doesn't say the Earth is flat, it doesn't really help us determine what the writers of the bible thought. They could so easily have put in a reference to the Earth being round if that is what they though, yet they didn't. So in the end the bible doesn't really help us here either way. Same deal about the universe.

So are you saying that you don't support the premiss that it is somewhat a flattish, roundish pyramid shaped planet then?

jmccr8

[kmt_sesh]

6 hours ago, Harte said:

Mincing. MINCING!

How many times I gotta tell ya?

Harte

And what about her petticoats?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

7 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

The Bible does not state that the world is flat or that Earth is at the centre of the universe. These are both fallacies for which there is no supporting evidence in religion.

Indeed, as it is a well known fact it’s teapot shaped.

[Emma_Acid]

On 08/11/2017 at 9:36 PM, Opus Magnus said:

Yeah, so, Newton discovered the math to gravity.  But this math had been played with before, he basically just added a squaring to it.  But, gravity has been known long before this, and so has the world being round. So, it's kind of misleading when it's said Newton discovered the theory of gravity, when he just improved on the mathematics of it.

The operative word here is "theory". Theory and fact are separate. The fact is what happens (objects fall to the ground, species evolve), and the theory explains the process (the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution).

[Opus Magnus]

3 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

The operative word here is "theory". Theory and fact are separate. The fact is what happens (objects fall to the ground, species evolve), and the theory explains the process (the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution).

yeah, but that's not even what i'm talking about. I'm talking about history.

[Duke Wellington]

15 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

To be fair it has is no supporting evidence for the Earth being round either. So just because the bible doesn't say the Earth is flat, it doesn't really help us determine what the writers of the bible thought. They could so easily have put in a reference to the Earth being round if that is what they though, yet they didn't. So in the end the bible doesn't really help us here either way. Same deal about the universe.

Actually the Bible says in numerous places its round. Isaiah 40:22: He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.

The problem is people distort the meaning of phrases like four quarters of the Earth away from meaning in every direction to the earth instead being a flat shape like a square.

[Opus Magnus]

I think one giveaway might be that the sky looks round like a dome. It's more apparent standing on a hill, and perspectively can lead to a few conclusions.