I noticed you managed to ignore being wrong about this one.
They did not "corospond," and neither did they correspond.
In letters which went between me and that most excellent geometer, G. W. Leibniz, ten years ago, when I signified that I was in the knowledge of a method of determining maxiam and minima, of drawing tangents, and the like, and when I concealed it in transposed letters involving this sentence [the encryption from the 'Epistola Posterior]...that most distinguished man wrote that he had also fallen upon a method of the same kind, and communicated his method, which hardly differed from mine, except in his forms of words and symbols. (Principia, the 'Scholium to Book II, Section II, Proposition VII)
It means that Leibnitz possessed the all important notion of a limiting process, and Newton didn't.
Apparently it means whatever you want it to mean.
Ah, now we come to the crux of it. Science is bad, bad, bad, because God doesn't appear as a term in the Euler-Lagrange equation.
Your really sinking fast, I can't count the times I've seen this and it never ceases to amaze me.
Aristotlean physics has got effectively nothing to contribute to any half way accurate description of the physical world. Had it occurred to Aristotle to formulate his ideas in mathematical terms, his equation of motion would have been F=mv. As he saw it, if you pushed something it moved, if you pushed it harder it moved faster, and if you stopped pushing it, it stopped moving. Therefore velocity must be in some way proportional to force. It took Newton to realise that things weren't quite that simple.
For at least a hundred years attempts were made to modernize Aristotelian mechanics but Galileo argued that it should be scraped. Mind you, he was a devout Catholic and wouldn't dream of disparaging Aristotelian ethics or metaphysics. Still, when the professors at Piza couldn't refute him he ended up at the Inquisition. His argument still holds true, the Bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens work. I don't care about some convoluted equation of motion, it's irrelevant to the doctrine of creation. But don't let me stop you if you want to give that straw man what for, it's none of my business.
He would have a hard time defending the idea that the physical sciences could be an axiomatic and deductive system, with no need for the messy business of observation and the inductive formulation of hypotheses. So he has to resort to Euclid as his hero from antiquity. Heaven knows how he thinks Aristotle can contribute anything to modern physics, let alone biology.
I was making the point that science is about tools, mental and physical and it was not invented overnight during the Scientific Revolution. The accomplishments of the past were not swept away by the development of physics and the principles of motion, they built on Euclidean geometry, they didn't replace it. Great things came from the Scientific Revolution, Algebra and Calculus, telescopes and microscopes, the deductive approach of Aristotelian scholasticism inverted into an inductive approach to natural phenomenon.
Don't think I have forgotten how you dragged this discussion off topic, I remember we were talking about the nature of Science. It's not a modern invention, it's roots reach deep into antiquity. Disparaging the wisdom of the ancients is the height of foolishness. Ever hear of the renaissance? It's a word that means rebirth and it was accomplished not by discarding the wisdom of the ancients but by embracing it and learning it a new.
You must be getting punchy by now, all that melodrama and you still can't make a coherent point stick. You ever think you might be breaking down all the time because you bought a lemon?
Have a nice day
Mark
