V-50 Session 6

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.  And welcome to the sixth session of the V-50 Lectures.  I’ll begin tonight’s lecture with a question, namely, how did man, in just three hundred years, progress from a vehicle called a horse drawn carriage to a vehicle called a rocket ship?  That’s quite a large magnitude of progress.  Who were the men responsible for this achievement?  And if most of them have been dead for centuries, then why bother to discuss the subject in the first place?

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a very difficult subject to discuss.  You’ll find the more important the concept, the more difficult it is to explain.  The more important the concept, the more difficult it is to understand.  The more important the subject, the more difficult it is to pique the individual’s excitement with respect to that subject.

On the other hand, let me ask you this.  Will people jump to their feet with excitement if, let’s say, somebody carries a football for a distance of 95 yards before somebody knocks him on his you know what?  Long before he has gone the 95 yards through the opposing team, will almost everyone in the stadium be on his feet?  On both sides.  The fans representing both sides.  Am I right?  Hmm.

But let me ask you this.  How many people will remember this run fifty years from now?  I’m sure there were many such runs in the year 1927.  Name one.  Will people cheer with exhilaration when somebody picks up a big stick and knocks a ball that someone else has thrown, knocks a ball 400 feet over a fence?  Will there be a scramble of excitement among the watchers of other people who hit balls with sticks?  Might the watchers of ball hitters even fight over the ball?  Can and do these things happen?

You’ll find that the two most difficult groups of people, that are the most difficult to explain what is important and what is significant, and get their attention on the subject, the two most difficult groups to reach: one, those who went to school, and, two, those who did not.  The more important the principle, the simpler the principle and, therefore, the more difficult it is to understand and, therefore, the more difficult it is to explain.

The subject I will be discussing this evening is called integration.  All of you are familiar with a political concept called racial integration.  I’ll be discussing that, as a matter of fact, next week in Lecture #7.  But I’m concerned here this evening, not with a political concept of integration, but rather a scientific concept of integration.  Integrate means to make into a whole, to form all of the individual parts into a complete or perfect whole that involves uniting all of the parts into a complete whole.  And the term comes from the Latin integratus which means to make whole.

When I’ve completed this lecture this evening, there will be no cheers.  However, if you understand this lecture, it will be the continuation of an intellectual integration that I launched in Session #1.  What I am discussing this evening is more important than all of the homeruns and all of the touchdowns combined throughout all history and all the ones that will occur in the future.  Therefore, if it’s that important, there will not be very many people interested.  Of course, I give all of you the benefit of the doubt that you will be because you’re more interested, for example, in major, important concepts than you are, for example, watching grown men hit balls with sticks.  As a matter of fact, if you are that interested in watching grown men hit balls with sticks, and that was the purpose of your life, it would be very difficult to get you enrolled in this course in the first place.  It would be almost impossible.

In Session 1, I gave you the following as one of the six failures of society.  And that is the failure to integrate, to tie together the sum of the social problems. And I asked, for example, how do you connect certain problems?  For example, what’s the connection between the relationship between congested freeways, race riots, skyrocketing taxation, inadequate public transportation, overpopulation, increasing inflation, continual war, increasing crime, inadequate education, increasing unemployment?  What is the connection between any one of these problems and all the rest?  What’s the connection between a man who has his intellectual, or primary, property stolen or plundered?  What’s that got to do with any one of these problems?  And what does any one got to do with all the rest?

Well, to answer this question with precision, it requires an intellectual integration of the entire social structure.  However, before you can understand how to accomplish that, we must first examine the significance of the integration of the physical sciences and the impact of this accomplishment upon society.

Here’s another question for you.  Can you connect up the following: Archimedes, who lived 2000 years ago and your colored television set?  And then fill in all the blanks.  Fill in all the steps from the intellectual achievements of Archimedes that led, 2000 years later, to your colored television set.  Can you do this?  How about this?  Connect up Isaac Newton and the Industrial Revolution.  And then fill in all the blanks.  Can you connect up the science of astronomy and the American Revolution and then fill in all the blanks?  Can you connect up Isaac Newton with the American Revolution and then fill in all the blanks?  Can you do this?

What if you cannot do this?  What if you cannot connect up the significance of Isaac Newton relative to the significance of the American Revolution, the connection, fill in all the blanks?  What that means is, number one, you do not understand the importance of Isaac Newton.  Number two, you do not understand the importance of the American Revolution.  And number three, you do not understand the importance of everything in between, if you cannot do this.  You do not understand the importance of it or the significance of it.

If you don’t understand it at this time, if it will make you feel any better, before I took this course I didn’t understand it either.  I went to school for 17-18 years.  Some of you have gone to school longer.  When you have the ability to integrate, you have the ability to connect up, tie together, relate those things which appear unrelated, disconnected, to those who do not understand the integration.  And the people who will not understand the integration will be what people?  Almost everyone.  Most of the four billion, with few exceptions.  And most of the four billion will not know anything about anything all the time on all subjects.  Everything they believe on every subject has one origin.  It’s called indoctrination.  Acceptance on blind faith.  Acceptance on dogma.  That’s always been true.  This theory provides you an opportunity to escape from this predicament and assert the authority of your own mind and think independently.

Another question.  What is the connection between the physical sciences and the science we’re building here called the science of volition?  If you cannot connect these things up, ladies and gentlemen, education is not possible without an understanding of the concept of integration.  You must achieve an intellectual integration before you can begin achieving what is called, and what will be called later, education.  I will be connecting up many things this evening.  I will be connecting up, for example, astronomy and capitalism.  Fill in all the blanks and much more.  We will be connecting up science and capitalism, historical capitalism.

Alright, science, as we know it today, begins with Isaac Newton.  Isaac Newton had two principal intellectual antecedents.  They were Archimedes whose dates 287-212 B.C. and Galileo Galilee, 1564-1642.  The year of the death of Galileo, 1642, is also the year of the birth of Isaac Newton.  In the hands of Newton, physics then became a fully grown science.  Physics, you might say, is the prototype science.  It’s not the only science.  It’s just the first fully established science.  And physics certainly has not ended.  As a matter of fact, it has just begun.  Newton is the beginning.

It is with the arrival then of the integration of knowledge through the hands of Isaac Newton that true science, true knowledge really begins.  The entire structure of society has changed as a result of the advancement of the physical sciences.  The increase in man’s knowledge above, or his progress and the knowledge that generates this progress, the increase in this above just a subsistence level of existence, a subsistence level above survival, has only taken place in the past three centuries.

Before the integration of knowledge, not even a very large percentage of people who were born into this world ever even survived their first few years of existence.  And those who did survive, lived a life of poverty and destitution.  They lived in squalor, conditions that were unbelievable by today’s standards.  And this was all people throughout all history, with few exceptions, because they did not know how to produce large amounts of property.  What does poverty mean?  I’m sure we’ve already discussed this.  Poverty simply means little property.  And there is one way to rectify this level of poverty.  As I have said many times and will continue to state again, even though you already understand it but for the purpose of increasing your sensitivity, and incidentally, I’ll come back to the subject of repetition later, if the goal is education, yet to be defined, repetition of major principles is absolutely essential or you won’t get it.  It applies to all people – those people who think they are exceptionally intelligent and those people who do not think of themselves as being intelligent and everyone in between.  If the goal is education, repetition is essential.

This evening, I will be developing a significant set of Newton’s position with respect to history.  Again, you may wonder.  I don’t get it.  What’s this got to do with freedom?  What’s this got to do with augmenting my business profits?  Hopefully, by the time this lecture is over, it will be clearer to you but it may not be then.  It still may take more sessions.  If you’re still not certain what you’re doing here, some of the best people who have ever graduated from this course, have told me that they didn’t know what they were doing here until around Lecture 12.  And around Lecture 12, the lecture on justice, they began to start putting it all together and they realized why they were here.  Because they may have been fighting it to such a great degree in the early sessions, they came back and took the course over again.  And then they could really understand the first eleven to twelve sessions which they missed, largely, the first time because they were fighting.

Science, as I have already explained, is essentially nothing more than the totality of organized knowledge.  Science does not deal with any particular branch of knowledge.  It deals with all knowledge that can be called organized.  As I have already pointed out, if all you have is facts, then the facts per se are of little value until they’re organized into some meaningful form.  The scientific method achieves this organization.  It’s the most powerful of all tools, of all tools, because you have a method of weeding out the “knowables” from the “unknowables”, the right from the wrong.

The scientific method is a selection process you employ to separate the useful knowledge from the non-useful.  I’ve already pointed out in an earlier session that, if you have to wait around for ten thousand years in order to determine which idea is right and which is wrong, we can’t really expect to make very much progress if we have to sit around for ten thousand years waiting for corroboration.  The scientific method, among other things, is a shortening process that enables you to identify what is right at the time of disclosure.  Furthermore, it’s the only tool in history that has ever been used to establish absolute rightness on a non-coercive basis.  Anything that can accomplish that is clearly a giant concept.

And so, with the use of the greatest tool ever conceived, namely the scientific method, you can achieve four steps that lead to progress in science.  And they are as follows.  We’ll discuss these.  Before I discuss it, it’s very difficult to explain because it’s so simple, all of these terms are in your vocabulary before you’ve ever heard of V-50.  And the difficulty is we have a tendency to tune out when we see a familiar term.  We say, “Well, I already know this.  I already had that.  I got that when I was a freshman.  I’ve known this for years”.  And it makes it very difficult to explain.

I’ll discuss the relationship, or the steps involved, in the progress of science in terms of:

  1. Classification
  2. Simplification
  3. Unification
  4. Integration

The term classification comes from the Greek classsus meaning division, a division of the Roman people, it originally meant.  When you classify, you arrange or group into classes according to some system, some principle.  I’ve already explained that you can divide all knowledge into three broad categories:  the physical, biological and volitional sciences.

The physical sciences, of course, are made up of various sub-branches: chemistry, mathematics, geology.  And you can classify matter into various categories:  solids, liquids, gases.  And the biological sciences, you can divide all living matter into subclasses: plants versus animals, vertebrates versus invertebrates.  In the volitional sciences, Galambos has divided all property into three broad divisions: primordial, primary, and secondary. This is a chronological concept because primordial property comes first and then primary property comes next and, third, you have secondary property.

Next we have the concept called simplification.  The concept is simplified if it can be reduced in its complexity.  If you can provide a shorter, or perhaps a more eloquent, proof, if you can minimize the number of unproven assertions called postulates, remember the fewer the postulates, the simpler the theory.  This was the concept I introduced earlier called Ockham’s Razor.

Next we have unification.  This occurs when you take two or more areas of knowledge where some progress has already been achieved and then you show that these seemingly dissimilar subjects are not unconnected but, in fact, they are connected; they are related.  When you unify, you demonstrate that there’s a relationship between two areas of knowledge when, prior to this time, there was no known connection.  To illustrate, in the ancient world, it was observed that if you took, for example, a certain stone, suspend this stone from a thread, let it turn free, that it always seemed to have a directional preference which was, of course, north.

And these were actually natural magnets and they were called, some of you know the name, they were called lodestones.  Lode means “a course, a way, a journey”.  Essentially, this became, if you wanted to use it for this purpose, a primitive compass and this would guide you in the direction of your way or your journey.  Well, these early observations represent the first contact that man had with a natural phenomenon known as magnetism.  Man observed the phenomenon of magnetism but he had no understanding of the nature of this phenomenon.

Now also in the ancient world, but quite independently of our observation of the loadstones, it was discovered if you rubbed an amber stick with some, perhaps, silky material, you could get the stick to pick up light objects.  This phenomenon was called electricity.  In fact, the word electricity comes from the Greek root eleketron which means amber.  That’s the origin of our concept of electron, electricity and so forth.

This phenomenon of electricity was also not understood.  It was observed but it seemingly had no connection whatsoever with the lodestone.  By the time thousands of years had elapsed from these early observations, both of these subjects, magnetism on the one hand and electricity on the other, both of these had been independently developed through the works of various people.  For example, much of our early knowledge of electricity was developed by a man that every American has heard of, although they have heard of him principally for the wrong reason, every school kid has heard of Benjamin Franklin, and principally for the wrong reason.  And a thousand years from now, Benjamin Franklin will not be even remembered for what he’s best known for.  What he will be remembered for will be his major achievements.  Benjamin Franklin, ladies and gentlemen, was a giant figure in the field of physics.  He is one of the major physicists of the 18th century.

For example, he made a very important discovery, one of the most important discoveries of all time, namely, that there are two kinds of electrical charges.  And he named them, respectively, positive and negative.  Of course, the version we get of Franklin in kiddie school is, well, he did some cute little experiments with the kite and the key, completely ignoring the significance and the importance of what he was discovering.  As a matter of fact, Benjamin Franklin is the first native American cosmological innovator.  Cosmological innovator being someone who makes discoveries of laws of nature.

Well, what is the known connection, the known connection, between electricity and magnetism at the time of Benjamin Franklin?  Well, the fact is there was no known connection, by Benjamin Franklin or anyone else.  Thirty years after the death of Benjamin Franklin, this man – anyone recognize who this is, taking the course for the first time?  Thirty years after the death of Benjamin Franklin, this man, his name is Hans Christian Oersted.  Oersted was in Copenhagen,  in Denmark, and he was demonstrating a laboratory experiment to one of his classes.  And he had, for example, on his demonstration table, he had an electrical circuit that was connected to a battery or voltaic cell.  And he was going to demonstrate the nature of this circuit to his students.  And probably left over from some earlier experiment, over on one side of the table, there just happened to be on the table a magnetic compass.  Now this compass was not wired into the electrical circuit that he had.  It was just over on one side of the table.  He didn’t pay too much attention to it.

And so, Oersted, in the process of demonstrating this electrical circuit to his students, he closes the circuit.  And at the same instant he closed the circuit, his eye just happened to catch the magnetic compass.  And at the same instant that he closed the circuit, the needle on the magnetic compass quivered and flipped.  And Oersted said, in fluent Danish, “Hmm” which, of course translated into English is, “Hmm”.  Would you care to guess what Oersted does next?  Is the next thing he will do the thing that the average fellow will do?  No.  The average fellow wouldn’t be curious enough to be performing an experiment in the first place.

Most people would have not probably noticed it.  But, of course, he does immediately forget all about the experiment, forget all about the students, and he opens and closes the circuit again.  And at the same instant he closes the circuit, the needle on the compass does the same thing.  It quivers and flips.  And he does it again and the same thing at the same instant.  It was rather amazing because there’s no wires connecting up the compass and the electrical circuit.

Oersted recognized something for the first time in history.  There is a connection between two seemingly disconnected, unrelated phenomenon.  One is called magnetism; the other is called electricity.  From this point on, research begins immediately to discover the connection between electricity and magnetism.  It was soon discovered by Oersted and his followers that around every electrical current, there is a magnetic field.  Please note, around how many electrical currents will there be a magnetic field?  Around every electrical current there will be a magnetic field.  That doesn’t allow for exceptions, does it?  That’s a generalization.  We do not allow for exceptions in physics.  We do not allow for exceptions.  It must work every time in order to call the hypothesis or the generalization true.  No exceptions.

And we continue to call it true until we find an exception which we haven’t found yet.  This discovery represented a unification of two seemingly different branches of knowledge:  magnetism and electricity.  This was not the end but, rather, only the beginning because this opens the door to further research into the nature of the connection.

Sometime later, this man, how many of you have heard of Michael Faraday?  Maybe a dozen of you or a few more perhaps.  Incidentally, when I ask you in this course, how many of you have heard of So-and-So, and only a few of you raise your hands, or no one raises their hands, and I mention this person favorably, what must this mean?  This must be one of the most significant, important individuals who’s ever lived.  Please understand, I do not call this to your attention for the purpose of insulting you.  That’s not the purpose of this.  But I’m illustrating something that I started in Session 1.  The more significant the innovation, the greater the impact upon the world, the less likely the individual will understand the innovation.  And likely he won’t even know the innovator either.  But I don’t state this for the purpose of insulting you. However, I do make this claim.  The more that an individual has done to enrich your life, to increase your wealth, and the less likely you have heard of him, I do claim it is a reflection upon the quality of your education.

Michael Faraday discovered the reverse to be true.  Oh, just one other thing.  It will make it easier for you.  A large number of people that I will refer to in this course, if you have never heard of them, a large number of them I never heard of either before I took the course myself.

Faraday discovered the reverse principle to be true.  If you move, for example, an electrical conductor, it could be a copper wire, a silver wire, through a magnetic field, this will induce an electric current to flow through the conductor.  He was looking for the reverse principle that was earlier discovered by Oersted.  Why was he looking for the reverse principle?  Why, obviously, because he knew about the first principle discovered first by Oersted.  Now he’s looking for the reverse and he finds it.

Was this a useful discover that he made?  It was good.  This was good.  This simple little experiment is the basis of our modern electrical technology.  Without this discovery, it never could have happened.  This is the principle of electromagnetic conduction.  I’d like to further point out that these early experiments were performed with equipment you could purchase today, probably, for less than half a dollar.  The equipment was simple but the results were far-reaching.  And these discoveries did not require billions of dollars of bureaucratic investment in basic research.  They did not involve team research, group spirit.  So this discovery of electro-magnetic induction by Faraday represents then one of the most important discoveries in history.

The same principle was discovered earlier, before Faraday, by this man.  Anyone taking the course for the first time recognize who this is?  The man you see on the screen, I would say, is easily one of the five most important Americans who ever lived.  That should make it easier for you.  Most of you probably went to school in America.  In American schools, we concentrate more upon the significance of people born in this country than they do the significance of people born outside of this country.  So you should all know who this is.  You don’t recognize him?  He’s done more to enrich your life than almost all of the four billions and all the billions that came earlier combined.  That’s how much he’s done for you.  How many of you have heard, independently of Galambos, and you should if you have any background in science, how many have heard of Joseph Henry?  Alright, we have maybe half a dozen or so. Joseph Henry is the second native American cosmological innovator.  He discovered the same principle of electromagnetic induction before Faraday did and, also quite interesting, it was with electromagnets designed by Joseph Henry that Michael Faraday was able to discover the principle of electromagnetic induction using Henry designed electromagnets.  And Henry did it earlier.  But they were both independent on the discovery.

Joseph Henry, among other things, invented another interesting device called the electric motor.  What do you think of that?  That was good.  That was good.  Have you ever gotten any value from an electric motor?  Your whole life.  The clothing on your backs, everything you own, with hardly any exceptions, electric motors had something to do with the manufacture, don’t they?

Well, we have two owners of the principle of electromagnetic conduction.  The first person to discover it was Joseph Henry.  The second was Michael Faraday.  So we have two independent owners of the principle of electromagnetic conduction.  Two independent discoverers of this principle.  Now Faraday’s discovery was a further unification; not…also the Henry/Faraday discovery was a unification, not yet what we would call an integration.  The integration in this field came through the hands of this man.  Do you recognize who this is?  He is one of the great giants of all time.  Someone usually says, “Well, I think that looks like one of the Smith Brothers, probably”.  I found out the other day they still make Smith Brothers cough drops.  Only they redesigned the package and I didn’t like it too well.  Anyway.  This is the illustrious, I’ll give you a big clue.  Do you remember that from Session 1?  The author of that is this man, the illustrious and magnificent James Clerk Maxwell.  And those, of course, were Maxwell’s equations.

Maxwell did this.  He’s, of course,…He was from Scotland.  He was a theoretical physicist.  He developed a set of mathematical equations that explain the interaction between the electric field and the magnetic field.  He shows the relationship between these two kinds of fields mathematically.  And these equations predict, for example, the existence of such things as electromagnetic waves when they had never even been observed.  He predicted the existence of what we would today call a radio wave that could be transmitted and received through space, what they then called the ether, without the use of wires.

And finally in 1887, this man, Heinrich Hertz, this is after the death of Maxwell, Hertz in his laboratory transmitted and received, from one end of his laboratory to the other without the use of wires, through the air, he transmitted and received what we would call, essentially, a radio signal.  And then, not too long after that, Marconi developed wireless telegraphy.

Now which was the greater achievement, Marconi’s, who was broadcasting signals, telegraph signals from across the great distances, like across the Atlantic Ocean, or Heinrich Hertz, who was broadcasting from one end of his laboratory to the other?  Which is the greater achievement?  Well, the mere fact that I even asked the question gives you the answer because, of course, most people would say, well, Marconi’s, because, I mean, that’s pretty impressive.  You can broadcast across the Atlantic Ocean.  And all Hertz did was just a few feet from one end of his laboratory to the other.  But I bring up the subject to demonstrate that the major achievement is that of Hertz.  Why is his achievement so significant?  Because he was the first to do it.  He was the first to demonstrate that it could be done.  After that, it’s a question of expanding upon it which Marconi did.  And to the credit of Marconi, he gave full credit to both Hertz and Maxwell, claiming that he could have done nothing without their prior work which, of course, is true.

It’s also interesting to note that the greater the significance and importance of the achievement, the less known the individual will be.  For example, most people have heard of Marconi.  Few have heard of Hertz.  Fewer still probably have heard of Maxwell.  On your FM receiver, there’s a designation Hertzian waves.  That’s named after, of course, Heinrich Hertz.

Maxwell, then, produced a set of equations which stand as a unifier.  More than this, they represent an integration.  From a single set of equations, you can drive electrical phenomenon, magnetic phenomenon, which includes as a byproduct an explanation of what is called light, in terms of light waves, heat waves, radio waves.  And so, Maxwell ties all of these, he connects all of these various things together:  electricity, magnetism, light, heat, sound.  He ties them all together and he explains they’re all related; they’re all connected.  Here’s how.  And then he gives us the equations; equation representing a shorthand explanation.  You can say a lot with a few symbols.  That gives you leverage.

Unification and integration only differ in degree.  In other words, an integration brings more concepts together.  It explains more than a unification.  In fact, the entire history of science represents a series of developments wherein many different observations are made about seemingly dissimilar things or phenomenon.  And these seemingly dissimilar, unrelated, disconnected phenomenon are then tied together, related, connected until the following happens.  Fewer and fewer principles explain a growing number of newly observed phenomenon.  In other words, less and less and less explains more and more and more.   And that’s where you get the leverage.  Fewer and fewer principles explain more and more and more.  That gives you the intellectual leverage.

Maxwell’s integration was made possible by the work of the first and most important integrator and that, of course, is Isaac Newton.  Let’s turn to a discussion of the first historical development of the first and most important integration.  First of all, the pre-Newtonian world was quite primitive indeed.  If you wanted to get from one place to another, the principal means of transportation, before Newton, was what?  What was the principal means of transportation?  That’s right.  Walking.  Your feet.  Only a few wealthy people owned horses.  And incidentally, there is a misconception you get from going to Hollywood movies.  Most people think, well, in olden days, olden times, people rode around on horses and in carriages. No. Only a wealthy man could afford a horse.  As a matter of fact, even today, owning a horse is very expensive.  Are you aware of this?  It’s very expensive.  And unlike your automobile, whether you ride the horse or not, it requires fuel.  At least your gas guzzler only requires fuel when you’re driving it.  And it doesn’t even require someone there to feed it gas while you’re gone for a few months.  But you can’t leave your horse without attendants very easily for a couple of months unless it’s out grazing some place.

Fewer people had something that the horse could pull, called a carriage or a chariot.  As a matter of fact, most of the people born into this world probably never traveled a distance any greater than fifty miles from the….a fifty radius from the place where they were born.  Why?  Because you had to get there on foot.  And to walk fifty miles, that’s a good distance.

Conditions, of course, were no different thousands and thousands of years earlier.  People had no means of communication with  one another.  If you sent a message, then it would be sent by someone in person.  Today, of course, we have telephones.  The telephone, of course, was invented by whom?  Let me see a show of hands.  How many of you know the name of the inventor of the telephone?  That’s all?  Half a dozen people?  Let me repeat the question.  You probably think it was a trick, don’t you?  Why is he asking such a stupid question?  How many of you think it’s a trick?  How many of you know the name of the inventor of the telephone?  Let me repeat the question.

If you didn’t think it was a trick, and you just met somebody, you know, the man-in-the-street interview, for $50, can you give me the name of the inventor of the telephone, how many of you would give as the answer Alexander Graham Bell?  Would anyone give some other answer independently from Galambos?  In other words, you didn’t get this from Galambos or from somebody who got….Do you want to give us your candidate?  You say somebody named Rice but you’re not sure.  Alright, anyone else?  No other candidates?

The telephone has essentially two inventors.  One is named Elisah Gray and the other is named Philipp Reis.  The young lady’s answer is correct.  Even though she was not sure, it is the correct answer.  Did you learn that in school?  You don’t know where you learned it.  Alright, talk to the graduate who got you into this course and find out whether or not it came from that person.  Just to satisfy your own curiosity and then let me know.  Because the question was did you learn this, in other words, independently from Galambos, directly or indirectly?  That’s all.  It’s possible to know this.  As a matter of fact, a woman from Germany was the one person who answered the question correctly in my Los Angeles course.  In fact, I asked her, she had a German accent, I said, “You’re not from Germany are you”?  And of course, in German schools, they probably teach that Philipp Reis is the inventor of the telephone because Philipp Reis was a German.

In this country, they teach that Alexander Graham Bell was the inventor of the telephone.  He was a Canadian.  I think he was born in Canada, I’m not a 100% certain, but I believe so.  Anyhow, it’s a near neighbor.  So we can include him.  He’s from the North American continent anyhow.  As a matter of fact – oh I should mention something about Philipp Reis.  He demonstrated his telephone at one of these scientific expositions in Europe.  And they were awarding prizes for the most important scientific achievements.  And the learned professors and the learned judges, when they looked at Philipp Reis’s telephone, their reaction essentially was, well, very interesting but we see no practical application.  Perhaps this will have value as a toy for children, but otherwise we don’t see any practical application.

Philipp Reis did not take this well.  He was a strange man.  He had a weird concoction but he had really innovated something of major significance.  He thought he had innovated something that would totally and completely revolutionize communication.  And he took this so poorly, I don’t know to what extent this had an impact upon his life, but he died shortly thereafter.  The term usually is, for want of a better explanation, he died of a broken heart.  I’m not saying that’s exactly what happened but it certainly did not augment the quality of his morale.  Incidentally, would you be interested in knowing the name that Philipp Reis gave to this contraption?  A very interesting name.  He called it a telephone.  Very interesting.  Yeah, isn’t it?  He even named this contraption.  The name has survived.

Some time, I believe after the death of Philipp Reis, there was a man who saw the Philipp Reis telephone in Scotland.  His name – Alexander Graham Bell.   Alexander Graham Bell brought into fruition the telephone of Philipp Reis.  Now that’s not to say that Bell did nothing.  Bell made significant improvements on the technology and of course he founded an entire institution, the telephone business.  And he’s to be given proper credit for this.  Even the Bell Telephone Company admits that it was not invented by Bell.  Well, they’ll admit it if you press them on the subject.  Anyhow.

Also very interesting, Elisha Gray innovated a telephone.  But unfortunately for Mr. Gray, Alexander Graham Bell got to the patent office about an hour before Elisha Gray.  And a coercive mechanism, a monopolistic mechanism, called patent was used to prevent Elisha Gray from using his own innovation.  The patent technology is not a means for the protection of primary property.  As a matter of fact, I’m afraid that the end result of patent technology is the law of bureaucracy.  Remember the law of bureaucracy?  You accomplish the exact opposite of what is intended.

The patent concept was used as a principal means in the plunder of primary property.  In other words, it has become an instrument of plunder.  There are all kinds of people who just camp in the patent office waiting to get access to all of the new innovations that are patented so they can steal them.  That’s SOP, standard operational procedure.

Nevertheless, the invention of the telephone would have been impossible had it not been developed in a structure of knowledge started by Isaac Newton.  Now Isaac Newton comes into the world with a vast number of scientific predecessors.  And he did not arrive in a vacuum and he did not start knowledge and, contrary to popular opinion, he did not discover gravitation.  What he did discover was what?  The universal law of gravitation.  Newton discovered the mechanism whereby you could account for gravitational phenomena.  As a matter of fact, Newton did not even discover that, when an apple falls, the direction is down.

Ladies and gentlemen, people had known since the beginning of time that when an apple falls, it does not fall up out of a tree.  It does not fall sideways.  When a rock falls, it does not fall up.  It falls down.  Just as everything else falls – down.  Newton was not the first person to notice this.  He was the first person, however, to make something of it.  You see, no one had ever made a correlation prior to Newton, a connection between the falling of an apple down and the apparent circular motion of the moon around the earth.  Had people before Newton noticed the apparent circular motion of the moon around the earth?  Was this known before Newton?  Yes.  Just look.  There goes the moon. Here comes the moon.  Round and round and round.  This had been noticed.  No one had ever made a connection, however, between these seemingly disconnected, unrelated phenomenon: the falling of an apple down and the apparent circular motion of the moon around the earth.  No one even thought about it before Newton with one possible exception.  We have a saying at the Institute, “When in doubt, if you suspect that anyone might have thought of it before Newton, when in doubt, say Archimedes”.

Archimedes is the single greatest scientist who ever lived.  For this reason.  His achievement occurred at a time when there was essentially an intellectual blackout.  It occurred at a time when he had no substantial predecessors.  He had no colleagues to whom he could express his ideas or explain his ideas.  He didn’t have any…he had no posterity to whom he could bequeath his ideas or be capable of understanding what he was talking about, who would appreciate his ideas.  The result of this, ladies and gentlemen, was one of the greatest tragedies of all time.

The work of the greatest scientist who ever lived lay dormant.  It was unused for two thousand years.  And that probably included even a concept called the calculus which is the single most important tool in the entire subject of mathematics, engineering.  It is the greatest tool of physics.  One of the most useful concepts ever conceived.  And although Archimedes left no direct record of the calculus, there are certain conclusions that he reached that we do have a record of, and there is no explanation that one can conceive of that would enable you to arrive at these conclusions without some knowledge of the calculus, some logical equivalent of the calculus.  There is no other explanation of how he could have reached these conclusions.  The probability is he understood even the calculus.  And for that to lay dormant for two thousand years would have to be one of the greatest losses in the history of mankind.

The ideas of Archimedes came at the beginning of a sequence of ideas.  The ideas of Newton came at the end of this sequence of ideas.  Newton wrapped all of this up, integrated all of this.  He says, essentially, all of this knowledge from Archimedes to the present, it is all connected.  It is all related.  Would you like to know how?  Here’s how.  And he explains it.  Of course, most people wouldn’t want to know how, either then or now or ever.  Because, you see, to know how it is all related in the physical world, how it’s all connected, that is so important, that is so profound, that is so large, it is so giant, it is so magnificent, it is so profound, practically no one will be interested.  That’s true then.  That’s true now.  And there will always be, I’m afraid, more people interested in watching grown men hit balls with sticks.  That was true then.  It’s true now.  And it probably always will be true.  For one thing, it doesn’t take any work, especially intellectual work.  Most people will do anything, they will try anything, only if they can avoid thinking.  As a matter of fact, that is one of the hardest things there is.  Thinking is so hard, it is so difficult, practically no one does it.

And so, Newton says, “Look.  It’s all connected.  Here’s how”.   And Newton and the few who wanted to know how and learn how, they changed the world.  The result was an explosion of knowledge like the world has never seen. The work of Isaac Newton places him in a singular role in the history of mankind in terms of his total impact upon property.  Newton is the single most important man who ever lived.  Isaac Newton is the most important man who’s ever lived.

Now, of course, a common reaction to that statement, “Well, that’s just your opinion”.  Or “You’re biased”.  Can I back this up, that Newton is the, I deliberately chose the definite article as opposed to the indefinite article, a, Newton is an important man.  No, Newton is the most important man to ever live.  But, of course, in order for you to understand what that statement means, I must define, at least, what term?  Important.  Should that be defined in order for you to know what I mean by the statement?  Yes.  Therefore, I will introduce you to one of the most important definitions in this course, the definition of importance.

Importance is the measure of the total amount of property affected   Therefore, Newton is the most important man who ever lived because he is responsible, ladies and gentlemen, for the generation of more primordial property, primary property, and secondary property than any man who has ever lived anywhere at any time.  And he is responsible for the generation of more primordial property, while not directly, because he never sired any children, but before Newton, most of the people who were born never survived to reach adulthood.  Newton had something to do with correcting this.  Had it not been for Isaac Newton, you probably would not have even been born.

Earlier, I asked you this question, in Lecture 3, when I was talking about the second postulant.  I said which man’s actions are the most important?  The man who discovered a cure for malaria or the man who loafs on a beach?  Which man’s actions affect the greatest amount of property?  The man discovering a cure for malaria or the man whose only actions essentially involve goofing off and loafing on the beach?  Clearly, there is only one answer to the question if importance is as I have defined it.  The man who discovered the cure for malaria because the impact of his life upon property is giant compared to that of the fellow who only loafs.  Importance is an absolute concept, not a relative concept.  And so, Newton’s influence upon property, upon future generations is so large, we refer to Newton’s achievement as the anchor point in history.

Alright, in the physical sciences, and I’ll come back to this anchor point in history, in the physical sciences, we’re very much interested in finding out about the nature of very small things.  In Greek, micro means little; cosmos means world.  Microcosm means little world.  What is the nature of these little worlds called atoms?  Now we’re interested in the nature of very large things.  Macros in Greek means great.  Macrocosm means great world.  What is the nature of this great world called the universe?

At one extreme, we have the microcosm world of the very small.  At the other extreme, we have the macrocosm, the world of the very large.  Alright, now take the microcosm and the macrocosm and fill in all the blanks.  That’s one of the goals of physics.  We haven’t quite been able to fill in all the blanks yet.  We have a long way to go, a long, long way to go.  But that’s one of the goals.

In our first significant understanding of the nature of the universe, the first area where we began to have some idea of what’s going on, on any subject, on a rational basis, the first domain of knowledge was called the field of astronomy which deals with the very large.  And here are some of the principal intellectual leaders that have taken us out of the cave and put us on to the moon.

And since every moment of our lives are enriched by these great achievements, I think it only fitting and proper that we take a few moments to acknowledge these magnificent achievements.  I couldn’t begin to do the subject justice.  I can only highlight a few individuals.  There was a man named Aristarchus of Samos who lived in Alexandria.  The city of Alexandria still exists today.  It’s on the Mediterranean, not too far from Cairo in North Africa.  And he lived around, the dates are not exactly certain, but he lived around 250 B.C..  A contemporary of Aristarchus – first of all, Aristarchus is one of the early people to put forth the view that the sun is the center of our planetary system.  He put forth the heliocentric system of the sun at the center and the planets revolving around the sun.  A contemporary of his was Archimedes.  He lived 287-212 B.C..  There was one person we have any record of who appreciated the significance of the ideas of Aristarchus, his name – Archimedes.  And we know about Aristarchus because a few fragments of Archimedes have survived where Aristarchus was mentioned favorably.

And then later, a man named Ptolemy, also of Alexandria, also an astronomer, put forth the Ptolemaic system, that the Earth is the center with the sun and the planets revolving around the Earth.  And he put forth a very ingenious mechanism called Ptolemaic Hypothesis, a geocentric explanation of our planetary system with everything revolving around the fixed, immoveable Earth.

Finally, two thousand years after Aristarchus, Nicolaus Copernicus  resurrects the Aristarchan hypothesis, expands upon it, and he puts the sun at the center of the universe.  He removes the center of the universe from the Earth, puts it 93 million miles out, only he didn’t know it was that far out at the time, but he moves it some considerable distance out to the sun and says the sun is the center of the universe and all of the planets revolve around the sun.  Well, of course, Copernicus was attacked for this position.  Aristarchus was even attacked for this position because people had a homocentric view of everything and naturally the Earth must be the center because it was believed that man is the purpose of the entire creation.  The entire universe exists to give man something to do.

Alright, if man is the purpose of the entire universe, then obviously the natural place to put man is in the center.  It was believed to put man any place other than the center was to degrade man and that was called heresy.  And the punishment for this type of defection or thinking was commonly you’d get to be tortured and then put out of your misery by being burned alive at the stake.

Another man of major significance was Tycho Brahe.  He carried astronomy as far as it could go with the unaided vision, without the use of telescopes and sophisticated devices.  Brahe’s very important contribution was his knowledge of the planetary motions.  He made observations of the motions of the planets.  For example, here’s what they look like.  These streaking lines, or streaks, through the sky, those dots of light, represent the fixed stars.  At least they thought they were fixed at the time.  And those streaks of light represent configurations of the actual paths of the planets.  Planet, of course, means wanderer.  And these wanderers would wander through the sky with very strange movements.  And the problem was how can you explain the path?  And that was a problem that they were trying to solve.

Well, Brahe made very accurate records for a period of some twenty years, recording the observed paths of the planets, the wanderers, against the background of the seemingly fixed stars.  And after Brahe’s death in 1601, his records were entrusted to the German astronomer, Johannes Kepler.  Unfortunately, Johannes Kepler had rather wretched eyesight, which is hardly the best qualification for a naked eye astronomer, but, in spite of this handicap, he was a very fine mathematician.  And Kepler was attempting to adapt the data of Brahe to the Copernican heliocentric hypothesis and he tried to predict an orbit for Mars and the other planets.  He tried to explain the shape, the actual observed paths of the planets.  He tried to explain that based on the Copernican position that all of these planets revolved around the sun, including the earth.  And he tried to predict an orbit for the planet Mars and for other planets.  The problem he would run into is he doesn’t seem to be able to fit the observations with the Copernican concept of the planets revolving around the sun.

Well, for years and years and years, he tried to come up with an orbit.  And he assumed that the orbit would be what shape?  Circular.  Everyone assumed it would be, as a matter of fact, it was commonly believed among scholars since the time of the Greeks, that the orbit would have to be a circle because the circle was a perfect form and therefore that’s the end of the subject.  And that’s the way it ought to be.  And this was the Aristotelian view.  And it was very risky to argue with Aristotle, even though Aristotle was dead now for two thousand years.  As a matter of fact, you could get burned at the stake for disagreeing with Aristotle and I’m not exaggerating.

One day, with an incredible amount of reluctance, and Kepler’s been working for years and years and years trying to explain these paths in terms of circles, for years and years and years and he’s not getting anywhere. It just doesn’t work.  It doesn’t fit.  But it’s got to be a circle.  But it doesn’t fit.  Well it’s still got to be.  It doesn’t fit.  Finally, one day, with an incredible amount of reluctance, ladies and gentlemen, you have no appreciation, I cannot either, for the difficulty that this must have required, with an incredible amount of reluctance, Kepler, finally, in frustration, says, “Why, I wonder, could it be, is it possible that, perhaps, that what we’re looking for, the shape of this is something other than a circle?  No.  No.  But….Well, let’s try it anyhow”.  And then he asks, “What is closest to a circle then but is not a circle”?

And that, of course, is, as most of you know, is an ellipse.  And so, he tries a new approach.  He asks what if the shape of the orbit is elliptical?  And he works on that for many more years.  And finally he obtains an orbit for Mars that fits the observations of Brahe.  And guess what?  The orbit that fits is elliptical.  And then Kepler takes a very bold step after observing the orbit for only one planet, Mars.  He generalizes and he says that all planets move in elliptical orbits.  And he formulated two other laws and these are called today Kepler’s laws of planetary motion.  And all three of them turned out to be correct.  The orbit was elliptical.

This represents a total, complete break with all past tradition.  This is the beginning of the end of Aristotelian dogma.  As long as Aristotle reigns, as long as Aristotle is believed to be the Alpha and Omega of all knowledge, and to question him is to commit heresy and to risk being burned alive, as long as that is the prevailing view, do you think we can make any progress in science?  No.  This is a giant step forward.

Then, at the same time, independently of Kepler, Galileo, a presumed artist’s conception of Galileo; it’s not even certain that we know what he looked like.  But…. In other words, Galileo is so important and so significant, they may have completely lost any record of what the man looked like.  Although you can find hundreds and hundreds of his contemporaries.  Their pictures are still in existence.  Of course, dukes, barons, and other thugs and scum.

Galileo developed the law of falling bodies.  When he drops the cannon ball and the light shot from the tower at Pisa, is he rocking the boat?  Indeed.  This is a major exception to Aristotle, again, who said the heavy object will fall faster than the light object.

Well, the law of falling bodies was another one of Newton’s inheritances which apparently had no connection with the discoveries of Kepler’s laws of planetary motion.  Newton inherits some knowledge about hydrostatics, gas principles, a feint amount of knowledge of heat, light, acoustics.  He got much on the subject of mechanics.  The Greeks had developed mathematics.  In India, the Hindus developed what later came to be called the Arabic numeral system.  They discovered one of the greatest discoveries of all time, the zero.  It was one of the most magnificent accomplishments of the human mind, discovered by a Hindu.  And we honor this Hindu, this great Hindu, one of the greatest giants of all time, a man who’s done more to enrich your life than all of the four billion and the ones that came before combined with few exceptions.  We honor him by having forgotten his name.  And then we add insult to injury by calling him an Arab when he was a Hindu.  And I point out it should be called the Hindu numeral system.  The Arabs had nothing to do with it.   The reason it’s called the Arabic numeral system is, during the Crusades, when the Christians attacked the Arabs and the Saracens, they already had this concept in mathematics.  The Christians returning to Europe took it back to Europe.  And since they got it from the Arab world, they referred to it as the Arabic numeral system.

And of course, this was a tremendous giant step forward.  Out of the concept of the zero, or what is called positional notation in mathematics, they get little interesting devices like tape recorders, television sets,  dynamos, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.  And I’ll give you a little homework assignment.  If you want to appreciate the significance of the zero and what this means in mathematics, take a simple exercise, like the date, 1977, and using the Roman numeral system, that I’m sure you remember from kiddie school, Roman numeral system, using the Roman numeral system, the date, 1977, using Roman numerals would be MCMLXXVII.  Is that right?  I think so.  Okay.  That’s the date, 1977, using Roman numerals.

Alright.  Using Roman numerals, take the date and square it.  And if you’re still not convinced, cube it.  I tried squaring it once.  I had reams of paper.  I never could get the right answer even.  That is one heck of a project, just a simple thing.  But look how simple, in your head, or with pencil and paper, it is to square 1977 using the Arabic numeral system or Hindu numeral system.  That’s a schoolboy exercise of second grade at least, or so.  Well, it should be.  I realize you can go to school for thirteen years and not know how to square the date using the Hindu numeral system.  And I probably would be more surprised if someone could do it.  Anyhow.

The concept, then, of the zero led to algebra which, of course, deals with quantities on an abstract basis.  René Descartes performed a minor integration when he integrated the analytic and geometric branches of mathematics, developing, of course, what is called analytical geometry.

I will now introduce you to one of the most important illustrations in this course.  This is called the anchor point in history, the ideological flowchart.  And it illustrates, if you look at it, there’s an N in the middle with an arrow.  And that points to, in time, the year 1665-1666, which was the year that Newton integrated the physical sciences on his farm at Woolsthorpe near Colsterworth, down the road a piece from Grantham, England in Lincolnshire County.  And the next time you are in Woolsthorpe, you must visit the birthplace of Isaac Newton and the site where he integrated the physical sciences.  I cannot think of any other reason to be in Woolsthorpe.  I can’t think of any other reason to be near Colsterworth.  I cannot think of any other reason to be down the road from Grantham or even in Lincolnshire County.  How many of you have been there?  None of you.  Alright.  Well, the more important the place to visit, the fewer will be the number of people who visit it.  That is probably the most important place that you could visit.  This is where the integration of the physical sciences occurred.  And that’s with precision.  Importance is what?  The measure of the effect upon property.  What happened at Woolsthorpe was the most important thing that has ever happened to man.  Again, it is so important and so significant, practically nobody understands it.  I hope you will by the time this lecture is over.

And so, on the left of this, we have the red lines coming to a point.  And these red lines represent some one hundred scientific streams of thought, but they’re totally disconnected, unrelated.  There’s no known connection among these one hundred steams of knowledge.   Now it was known before Newton that down, as a direction on Earth, is relative to where you happen to be standing.  However, it was believed that some mysterious force kept people from falling off the Earth.  Well, Newton went much farther than this.  He made a very simple statement to begin with, namely, all objects in the universe attract each other.  Would you say that is a large statement?  That is one of the biggest statements of all time.  Let me repeat that.  All – is that offering exceptions?  No.  All objects, everything in the universe, attracts what?  Everything else in the universe.  That is one of the biggest concepts ever conceived.  And, of course, the common reaction to it, especially if you went to school, well, that’s obvious.  Well, everybody knows that.  So what else is new?  I learned that when I was a freshman.  Heck, I knew that in sixth grade.  And it sails right over your head, the significance of it and the importance of it.

He went even farther than that.  Not only did he say that everything in the universe attracts everything in the universe, but the amount of the attraction quantitatively grows proportional to the product of their respective masses and is inversely proportional to the square of their distances.  Now you don’t have to  understand the mathematics of this, at this point.  Some of you already do.  The main thing to understand is that not only is he saying that everything attracts everything, but then he’s saying here’s how and he explains it in terms of a few simple mathematical principles.  And the mathematics is just shorthand.  In other words, that’s another concept of less and less and less explains more and more and more.

And so, Newton extends the observation of the falling apple to the earth, to the planets, to the stars.  You see, I might point out, that from the time of Aristotle, it was believed that celestial objects obeyed a different set of laws than those things that were earthly.  Newton makes a complete break with all past tradition when he generalizes that the same principle that explains the motion of the apple also explains the motion of the moon.  Newton generalized that the rate of the fall is proportional to the strength of the gravitational force.  Newton takes a very bold step.  He says that this hypothesis holds true for all matter in the universe.  This was the first universal law ever postulated.  The universal law of gravitation was essentially a postulate.  It’s one of the principal, fundamental postulates of physics.  A postulate is what?  An unproven assumption that is true.  And indirectly it can be proven and has been proven with the full corroboration of Newton’s theory of gravitation.

And so, the law of gravitation, ladies and gentlemen, is the prototype of the universal law.  It’s the original model.  It shows that there are such things as universal laws.  And why is this so important?  Well, if there is one universal law, there might be a second.  And if there is a second, there could be a third.  But if you don’t know about the first one, are you looking for the second or the third?  Obviously not.  And so, the first one identifies there is such a concept.  There is such a thing.

Now, of course, even today every  relationship in the universe has not been measured but there have been hundreds of thousands of measurements since the time of Newton and they do not contradict his basic law.  We, therefore, continue to call it a law.  To be sure, there are a few places in relativity theory that don’t quite fit, but these are outside of the scope of this course.  But Professor Galambos will go into them in great depth in his physics course.   And so, suddenly, at the anchor point in history, all known physical phenomena prior to this time suddenly falls into place, into a pattern.  And as a direct result of this, all kinds of new knowledge is developed after the integration of 1665-1666.  As you can see, there’s an explosion of knowledge as a result of the integration.

However, Newton’s discovery of the universal law of gravitation was not immediately disclosed by Newton.  Newton was attacked by people who were claiming his ideas.  People were nitpicking, quibbling.  “Well, you probably overlooked this point”.

Or, “Have you stopped to consider…”?

“Do you realize….”?

“When I was in college we learned…..”.

Newton was so totally harassed by the nitpickers and the quibblers that he says, the price of publishing anything else is just too damn high.  I’m not going to publish.  I’m not going to spend the rest of my life defending my intellectual achievements.  The price is just too damn high.  A man comes into the life of Isaac Newton, seeking his advice.  The man is named Edmond Halley.  Halley was a major astronomer of the period.  And he had been trying for years to prove Kepler’s laws of planetary motion mathematically, but he did not know how to do it.  Well, Halley heard about this oddball fellow Newton.  He usually kept himself shut up alone.  He was pretty much of a recluse.  His lectures were poorly attended.  But he thought if anyone had the intellect to solve this problem, it might be Newton.  So he goes to Newton and he asks, “Do you know how to show the planetary motions ought to be elliptical?  Can you prove Kepler’s laws of planetary motion mathematically?  Can you supply the proof”?

Newton says, “Sure.  It’s quite simple.  As a matter of fact, I have the proof here on my desk someplace”.  Well, of course, Newton’s desk was a pile of papers.  We have a term for this here which I won’t discuss, but it’s what we call an entropy pile which refers to the second law of thermodynamics.   And he couldn’t find it.  And he said, “Well, I’ll send it along to you later”.  He never did find it, at least right then.  So he had to re-compute the whole thing and he sends it off to Halley.  Would you like to know what was lost on Newton’s desk?  It’s called the universal law of gravitation.  It was lost somewhere on his desk.  That’s all.

Anyhow, when Halley got this, he was absolutely amazed. He’d been trying to do this for years.  Newton had easily done this.  And there was a very good reason why Halley had not done this.  As a matter of fact, Newton didn’t know how to do it for some time either because Newton discovered there was absolutely nothing available in the entire subject of mathematics at the time that enabled you to handle what are called moving objects mathematically.  And so, he built a tool to discover the answer to the problem he was looking for.  The tool has a name.  It’s a mathematical tool called the calculus; the most important addition in the entire history of mathematics to that subject and the greatest mathematical tool of the physical sciences.  Calculus was developed simply for the purpose of solving an astronomical problem, to find a way to handle moving objects mathematically.  And Isaac Newton was not even a mathematician.  Of course, we should give equal credit to Gottfried Leibniz who developed the calculus around the same time as Newton and also independently of Newton.

Well, Halley recognized the importance of Newton’s ideas.  He urged Newton to publish.  Newton, again, refused to publish because he did not wish to engage in further controversy that he was certain would follow publication.  Halley continued to badger Newton.  Finally, Newton did publish.  Halley handled all of the details of the publication.  He even financed the venture.  And finally it was published in 1687 which I will call the second most important date in history, the most important date being 1665-1666.  The second most important date, the publication of Principia Mathematica and the System of the World, 1687.  This was the title page from a very modern English edition of Principia.  Sometime, you might remind me to make a note to dig up some of my slides of the first edition of this which I took when I was in England visiting the Royal Institution, the Royal Society rather, not to be confused with the Royal Institution.  Those are two different organizations.

In any event, this was published twenty years after Newton actually did the work.  This book, incidentally, ladies and gentlemen, is the most important book that has ever been published.  I’ll further illustrate that.  How many of you have read Principia Mathematica?  Let me see a show of hands.  One.  One, independently of Galambos?  Alright, one person?  Okay.  Did you read it in Latin or English?  When you’re bored sometime, read it in Latin.  It’s difficult in English.

And it’s not to insult you.  But here is the most important book ever published.  This book has resulted in the generation of more primordial, primary and secondary property than any book ever published anywhere at any time.  One of you have read it.  Again, illustrating what?  The more important the book, the fewer will be the number of people who have read it.  But that was the good news I talked about clear back in Session 1.  Has this book changed the world?  More than any book ever written.  And only a few people have read it to this very day.  That’s the good news.  You see, you don’t have to educate all of the masses to implement giant solutions.  We’ll do it with just a few people.  That includes you.  So don’t worry about, “Well, what about those jerks out there that aren’t curious like me”?  Don’t worry about them.  We’ll take care of them in Lecture 15 anyhow.

Just a few more things and then I’ll be finished with this first half of this session.  During this time, a comet happened to pass near the Earth.  Edmond Halley made a calculation based upon Newton’s laws determining what the orbit for the comet would be.  And he made a prediction that the comet would return in 75 years.  It would return.  In the meantime, other things were being predicted from the law of gravitation.  You could determine the orbit of Mars, when the moon would create an eclipse and so forth.  Gradually the Newtonian law of gravitation became more and more useful.  People were extending it into more and more areas of  knowledge.  And so, after Newton, the various branches of knowledge in the physical world are fully integrated.

Today, as a result of this, people are investigating very specialized domains of knowledge.  For example, way down in the little capillary areas on the end of this, people are looking into things like, for example, the field called proton-proton scattering.  That’s a very small sub-branch of the investigation of like nuclei which, in turn, is a sub-branch of atomic physics which, in turn, is a sub-branch of physics which, in turn, is a sub-branch of astrophysics which deals with the nature of the entire universe.  Galambos is an astrophysicist.  That’s the largest subject there is.

I will conclude this first half with a quote from the great Italian physicist Lagrange who said in the century after the time of Newton, “Newton is the greatest genius who ever lived and the most fortunate for there cannot be more than once a system of the world to establish”.  What he meant by this was what?  Well, there can only be one man who’s the first man to explain how the whole universe fits together.  And this achievement of Newton’s is referred to as the Newtonian World Machine.  The world, the universe, is like a machine.  It has inter-fitting parts, explainable parts.  And here’s how it all fits together and can be explained in terms of a few simple principles.  It’s all connected.  It’s all related.  Here’s how.

I’ll have much more to say about the impact of Newton’s achievement in the second half of this lecture.  If the first half didn’t make a lot of sense to you, hopefully the second half will make a big impact upon you because I will be connecting up, for example, Isaac Newton and the American Revolution.  Did your teachers connect these two things up for you in school?  I’ll answer for you.  No, they didn’t.  Your teachers did not understand the significance of the American Revolution or of Isaac Newton or of everything in between.  Therefore, if you got an A or an F, in either case, it was irrelevant.


Continuing now with the second part of Lecture #6, I’m returning once again to an illustration of the Anchor Point of History chart.  If you look at the right of the Anchor Point of History, and below you’ll see a “M” and right above it an “E”.  The E stands for Einstein.  The M stands for Maxwell.  And Maxwell took several streams of knowledge and integrated them.  He stands at the head of his own stream. He’s the first post-Newtonian integrator.  Einstein also, after Maxwell and Newton, stands at the head of his own stream of knowledge.

It is very important to point out that Einstein’s law of gravitation does not, in any way, replace Newton’s.  As a matter of fact, most of the work done today in physics is based upon Newtonian mechanics, Newtonian physics.  Only a smaller portion of it is based on the ideas of Einstein.  Einstein does represent a higher integration but his work depends upon the earlier work of Newton’s.  And Einstein, himself, made a very careful accreditation of Newton’s work when he said that he could not have accomplished his work without the work of Newton.  And because there are so many dimwits who believe that Newton is passé, and anyone who does has no understanding of science, I think it fitting and proper that I read a statement from Einstein himself on the subject of Newton and Newton’s work relative to his own.  He said this in 1948:

“No one must think that Newton’s great creation can be overthrown be relativity or any other theory.  His clear and wide ideas will forever retain their significance as the foundation on which our modern conceptions of physics have been built”.

Thus stated Albert Einstein in 1948.  Newton was the finest example of a man who recognized that he, himself, had primary property antecedents.  Newton said, and this is the motto of the Free Enterprise Institute:

“If I have seen farther than others, it’s because I have stood on the shoulders of giants”.  This has also been quoted as follows: “If I have seen further, it’s by standing on the shoulders of giants”. But in either case, the concept is identical.  And he is referring to such intellectual giants before him as: Galileo, Copernicus, Archimedes, Roger Bacon, René Descartes, and others.  And there’s a descriptive name, as I said, for Newton’s innovations.  It’s called the Newtonian World Machine.  The world is like a machine that has comprehensible parts.  They inter-fit.  Here’s how.  And this concept is extended to the entire universe.  The universe is a machine that never breaks down.

Well, what effect did the integration of the physical sciences have upon the social structure and everything else?  One of the very important effects of the Newtonian World Machine was that it led directly to the destruction of demonology and the enhancement of monotheism.  What is demonology?  Before Newton, people would account for all phenomena that they could not explain, in other words, phenomena that did not seem to have any understandable cause and effect relationship, they would account for all of these things by offering the explanation that this phenomenon is the work of the gods or spirits or some mysterious force.  For example, if a sea captain’s ship sank, he would believe that he must have offended Neptune, the god of the sea.  If a general lost a battle, then this obviously was because Mars, the god of war, had become angry with him.  He had failed to make the proper sacrificial offering.  Mars was angry.  Therefore, he lost the war.  If a farmer’s crops failed, the god of the harvest must be displeased. On the other hand, if he has a good crop, then he has pleased the god of the harvest.

Well, Isaac Newton comes along and he completely shattered the demons.  Newton says the universe is comprehensible.  Things have a rational reason for happening.  If such and such happens, if you look far enough and deep enough, you will find the cause.  And whatever the cause is, it will not be a demon.  And so, the effect of Newton is far reaching.  If a ship sinks now, subsequent to Newton’s ideas coming into the market, when the sea captain considers looking for an explanation other than the fact that he has displeased the gods, he may have realized the reason my ship sank was because we plowed into some rocks.  This means what is required is not the favor of the gods but perhaps better navigational charts so that next time we can circumnavigate around the rocks instead of going through them.  As a matter of fact, that is still true today.  Even the best of modern ships does not do too well plowing through the rocks.  Am I right?  Especially at 40 knots.

But if a ship capsizes in a storm, perhaps what is required is a better ship design, one that can weather great storms.  And so, it’s no longer a question of praying to Neptune but rather of understanding of the nature of the laws of buoyancy, developed by whom?  Archimedes.  This enhanced, however, the application of buoyancy to ship design as a post-Newtonian concept.  In other words, that was one of those bits of knowledge that was dormant for two thousand years.

And so, all of this enhanced monotheism, by showing that there was one single explanation for nature instead of, let’s say, 20,000 different explanations.  You may recall, the Romans had somewhere in the general magnitude of 20,000 gods.  They had a god for everything.  There was a god of harvest, a god of fertility, a god of love, a god of thunder, a god of rain.  You’ve heard of, for example, Pomona, California, up the road a piece here?  Pomona, California is named after the goddess Pomona who was the goddess of fruits and nuts.  I did not make that up. So it’s really improper that there should be a city in California called Pomona.  Anyhow.  All things after Newton and a single unified integrated explanation in terms of the source of natural law.  In other words, one explanation instead of 20,000.  You see, the 20,000 gods is a bit cumbersome and it defies Ockham’s Razor.  Let’s keep it simple.  So Newton is the anchor point not only for our physics but the anchor point in history for all knowledge.

At the time that Newton was integrating the physical sciences in England, 1665-1666, was his accomplishment getting a lot of attention?  Hardly.  What was getting a lot of attention?  What was making headlines at this time?  The plague.  The importance of Newton’s accomplishment did not merit one line even.  As a matter of fact, the reason he went to Woolsthorpe was to get away from the plague.  Isaac Newton had a contemporary and friend by the name of John Locke, a man many of you have heard of.  Both of these men knew each other quite well.  One had a major, profound effect upon what later came to be called capitalism.  And you might say he is one of the originators of the basis of the concept of capitalism.  John Locke, as a matter of fact, was the first person to have uttered a statement.  He was the first to have uttered the statement that the social structure was primarily dependent upon a concept called property.

I would like to read to you from John Locke’s Of Civil Government, The Second Treatise, published in 1689.  Alright.  When was Principia Mathematica published?  1687.  So this is two years post anchor point in history.  Actually, it’s more than that.  It’s two years post the publication of Principia Mathematica.  He actually did the work some twenty years earlier than it was published.    I’ll read a brief passage from John Locke’s Of Civil Government, The Second Treatise, 1689:

“Though the Earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person.  This nobody has any right to but himself”.  Galambos, of course, would call that primordial property.  “The labor of his body and the work of his hands, we may say are properly his”.  Labor would be what kind of property?  Property in action or primary property.  “Whatsover then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided and left it in, he has mixed his labor with and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property”.  We now have what kind of property?  Secondary property.  “It, being by him being removed from the common state nature placed it in, it hath by this labor something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men.  For this labor being the unquestionable property of the laborer, no man but he can have a right to it”.  End of quote, John Locke.

Interesting?  John Locke was the first person to recognize that the function of government, properly, is to protect property.  The way John Locke puts forth these ideas, what motivated John Locke to seek a single explanation for the basis of the social structure?  What motivated him to find an integrating concept?  Well, John Locke was attempting to extend the same rationale that Newton had achieved in the scientific area into the social area.  He was attempting to find an absolute that would explain human behavior.  And here’s another interesting quote from John Locke:

“The incomparable Mr. Newton has shown how far mathematics applied to some parts of nature may carry us in the knowledge of the universe.  And if others could give us a good and clear account of other parts of nature, as he has of this our planetary world, in his admirable book Principe Mathematica, we might in time hope to be furnished with more true and certain knowledge in several parts of this stupendous machine than hitherto we could have expected”.

Now Locke’s language is almost always cumbersome and difficult to follow, but essentially what he’s saying is this. If Newton can accomplish all of this in physics, building out a few simple principles, then perhaps, by taking the same posture and approach to the volitional or social world, we can accomplish similar levels of achievement applying all of this to the social structure.

Well, he was right.  This has been one of the great mistakes made by those people in the physical sciences.  They think the epistemology, the intellectual foundation only applies to physics.  The result is we have a giant crisis.  We’re ready to destroy ourselves and up to this time we haven’t had the knowledge to prevent it.  Incidentally, if the only thing that this theory did was to prevent the extinction of the species Homo sapiens, you realize you would have gotten your money’s worth.  Of course, you’d also realize that if we can’t solve that problem, all other problems are, in contrast, academic.

Now John Locke was not alone.  Other people came along in the 18th century.  In France, Voltaire and the French physiocrats tried to explain the social order in terms of natural principles.  The word physiocracy means rule of nature.  Quanti in Greek means to rule.  Physio refers to nature.  And so, the physiocrats were saying that nature should rule men and not these jerks and jackasses called kings.  The French physiocrats coined and popularized the word “laissez-faire” which means “let alone” or “let happen”.

When the king asked some of these intellectuals what is the best thing I can do for my people, they said, “Laissez-faire”.  In other words, butt out, your Highness.  Let the people alone.  Go mind your own business.  And this, of course, is one of the most important economic innovations of all time.  The only thing the state should do is leave people alone.  In other words, abdicate. You see, if you’re leaving people along, you’re not harming anyone.

Adam Smith was influenced by Newtonian thought.  He published his great work, Wealth of Nations in 1776, some two centuries ago. Smith was to economics as Euclid was to geometry.  He discusses the importance of the division of labor, the importance of free trade and many right concepts in economics.  Finally, all of these extensions of Newtonian ideas into the social domain culminated in something you have all heard of.  It was called the American Revolution.

Now, if your knowledge of the American Revolution was acquired by taking American History courses or by reading textbooks on the subject, I would say that your knowledge of the American Revolution is worse than if you had no knowledge of it at all.  Your knowledge of the American Revolution is a total distortion of what happened: the importance of it, a rational explanation of it, and the significance of it.  I’ll have more to say about the American Revolution in later sessions.  I’ll only touch on it briefly here.  The American Revolution, not to be confused with the fighting – as a matter of fact, oh, I’ll come to that – the American Revolution was a principle that stated that man is an independent sovereign being.  That the government exists to serve man and not man to serve the government.  The government does not specify rights.  It does not even assign rights.  It does not create rights.  Its singular function is to fasten down, to secure rights, to protect rights.  Secure means protect.

Revolution comes from the word revolve which means to turn around.  You cannot launch a revolution with a spear or a gun.  I’ll demonstrate you can only launch a true revolution with a principle.  The whole concept, for example, of revolutionary war, that’s an internal contradiction.  There is no such thing as a revolutionary war because, ladies and gentlemen, there is nothing revolutionary about war.  I’ll cover these things later.  The American Revolution was a principle that represented a total departure from the past.   I’ll discuss this also in Lecture 7 in greater detail in connection with Thomas Paine and his role.  The most important people who directly influenced and participated in the American Revolution, first and foremost, the founder of the American Revolution, the father of our country, any school kid can tell you who is the father of our country, any school kid will immediately recognize his picture.  The author of the American Revolution, the founder of the American republic, the author of the Declaration of Independence, the illustrious Thomas Paine.  Any school kid, of course, can tell you this.  Hmm.

I won’t take this lecture to prove that Thomas Paine is the founder of the American Revolution, the founder of the American republic and the author of the Declaration of Independence.  I suppose in school they probably tell you that the Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson.  They probably tell you the father of our country is George Washington.  Well, they got those wrong too, incidentally.  If they can’t even get it right as to who is the father of the country and the founder of the nation and the American Revolution and the author of the Declaration of Independence, if they didn’t even get those things right, is it not conceivable that maybe they got a few other things wrong too?  Yeah, almost everything.  Almost everything you were taught in school, ladies and gentlemen, outside of what you were taught in the physical sciences, and to a lesser degree the biological sciences, almost everything you were taught was wrong.  Wrong is what?  Either irrational or, if applied, immoral or both.  I’m giving you, at this point, conclusions.  I’ll discuss this later.  So at this point you have no other input although I’m telling you that this is a different version than you got in school. I’ll have more to say about it later.

Other than Thomas Paine, there was James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Mason.  And all these people were directly influenced by Newtonian integration. Voltaire popularized Newtonian physics in France.  The physiocrats extended Newton and Newtonian concepts and physical principles to the social domain.  Adam Smith’s work was largely based upon physiocracy.  So all of the leaders of the American Revolution were men who were conversant on the principles of physical science.  Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin – Franklin, I said, was not only knowledgeable on the subject of science, he was one of the major physicists of the 18th century and the first native American cosmological innovator.  The second was Joseph Henry.  I said there were only three, didn’t I?  The first two are Franklin and Henry.  Are you interested in who the third is?  There’s only three.  If one person is interested, I’ll reveal it.  Alright, sir.  How many have heard of Josiah Willard Gibbs, independent of Galambos, Josiah Willard Gibbs?  I know it’s got to be more than zero. One person.  He’s the third native American cosmological innovator.  In fact, when I gave you Maxwell’s equations, in this version, that’s the mathematical notation of Josiah Gibbs applied to Maxwell’s equations.

Thomas Paine had a profound comprehension of mathematics and astronomy.  He had a full knowledge of Newtonian physics.  As a matter of fact, Paine probably was the finest mathematician in the colonies.  He’s the inventor of the iron bridge, a concept that was, of course, stolen from him.  Others have taken the credit.  In the meantime, an event of major significance occurred.  The year was 1758.  What happened in 1758?  I’ll refer to that as the third most important date in history.  1758? 1758.   What event was one of the giant events of all time?  It came back.  The comet.  Remember the comet that Edmond Halley predicted would return in 75 years?  It returned 75 years later exactly at the time it was predicted to return.  It was first sighted on December 25, 1758 which, fittingly, although quite a coincidence, was also the birthdate of Isaac Newton, December 25th.  It’s the birthday of Isaac Newton.  And it was first sighted on his birthday.  This event represented a total triumph of Newtonian physics.

Now both Newton and Halley were dead by this time.  However, the comet came back and it came back, without them even being around, exactly on schedule.  Now what’s significant about this?  Comets had come back before.  Why is this such a big deal?  In order to understand the significance of this, you have to first understand the attitude of the masses, in particular, on the subject of comets.  How many of you have seen a comet?  How many have seen a comet?  Not a picture of a comet.  I mean a comet, either through a telescope or with the naked eye?  Alright.  That’s maybe less than 20% of the people present.

If you lived at this time, all of you would have seen the comet because this was one of the most frightening occurrences to people.  They thought, when they would see all these comets in the sky, this is a catastrophe.  This is a disaster.  This is the end of the world.  At the very least, the king will die.  A catastrophe will occur.  They were frightened to death.  Everybody saw the comet.  As a matter of fact, the common prayer at the time was something to the effect, “Oh God, protect us from the plague, the Turk and the comet”.  Those were the three things they were most frightened of: plagues, the Turks were running loose in Europe killing people, and the comet.  And they’d repeat this prayer over and over again.

Shakespeare says, something to the effect in one of his plays when beggars die, there are no comets seen.  The heaven themselves ring forth, or bring forth, the death of princes.  In other words, when a comet appears, this is going to be at least the death of a prince or some catastrophe.  They were afraid to death of this.  Well, now suddenly, somebody correctly predicts the return of a comet.  And this was a melodramatic demonstration of the rightness of Newtonian physics.  And the people who understood Newton and his physics, they were not surprised that it returned.  But the effect upon the general populous was profound indeed.  Why, these scientists, why they’re better than the witchdoctors.  Why, anyone who can correctly predict the return of the comet must be a superior human being, a man of great intelligence.  Hey, we better listen to what these fellows have to say.  It must be important.

And, of course, this removes the fear out of it.  Because now, when you can predict the return of the comet, when it appears, now what is the attitude of the masses?  Oh it’s nothing.  It’s a comet.  It’s no big deal.  We know it’s coming.  It’s a comet.  Don’t worry about it.  That takes the fear out of it.  We knew it was coming.  They mentioned it was going to be around.  There it is.

And how can we be certain that the fear has been removed?  Well, I just asked you.  You just proved it.  Less than 20% of you have seen a comet.  If it had not been predicted, all of us would have seen it and we would have been frightened.

This, ladies and gentlemen, represented a complete and total break with all past tradition.  Something happened that had never happened in all history.  For the first time in history, the man in the street, the general populous, they were following what people with what kind of ideas?  For the first time in history, the masses were following the people with right ideas that were right, not on a relative basis, but on an absolute basis.  This had never happened in history.  For the first time, the people who had absolutely right ideas get the attention of the masses. The ability to know how to do this, incidentally, has got something to do with building freedom.  You must reach the masses.  Lecture 15 explains how to do this.  If you can’t reach the masses on any basis, it’s hopeless.  You cannot build anything.  The question is how do you reach them.  I’ll give you a clue of one way that won’t work.  If you try to educate the masses, it is hopeless.  For reasons that I’ll explain later, the masses are uneducable.  They cannot be educated.  In order to educate the masses, you would have to repeal the laws of nature.  That is utopian.  As a matter of fact, the whole concept of public education is hopelessly utopian.  It cannot work.

And that will give you a little clue as to how some boob can go to school for thirteen years and be an illiterate, blockheaded ignoramus.  And that’s the majority of them that we turn out of our public schools.  Ditto the private schools.  And even the few who know how to read, can’t think.  They cannot evaluate the intellectual thought content of what is written to determine what’s right.  And so, they’re subject to swindle.  And they get swindled every day of their life because they don’t know how to think.  We live in an entire social structure based on swindle.  And the longer you go to school, the more effectively you can be swindled.  However, that’s only true when the entire concept of school is wrong, from Kindergarten to PhD.  If you think I’m hard on the schools, be patient.  Lecture 14 is on education.

All the problems we’ve had since science has gotten such a powerful image, I mentioned this in Lecture 1, is that by calling something scientific, you can sell anything.  Guess what?  Karl Marx called socialism scientific.  Well, it just so happens, ladies and gentlemen, that socialism is no more scientific than astrology.  Astrology, of course, is pure bunk.  Remember I said, this is not a popularity contest.  I realize there are probably many people present who read the daily horoscope and other forms of astrological rubbish, and if you believe this, you have been swindled.  That is pure swindle.  Just as socialism is pure swindle.  And neither one of them is no more scientific than alchemy or any other form of pseudoscience.  That’s why we have to make a very sharp line of demarcation between pseudoscience and science.  Socialism in any form, collectivism, is 100% fraud.  With the accepted socialism in this country, just how deeply, I’ll discuss in Lecture 7, hook, line and sinker.   And those who have accepted it most deeply are those that spent the greatest amount of time in school.

I’d like to discuss for a moment how Newtonian integration led to the Industrial Revolution.  The Newtonian revolution launched another revolution that has been just as misunderstood as the American Revolution.  That’s the Industrial Revolution.  Twelve years before the beginning of the American Revolution, a man named James Watt, you’ve heard of, he perfected what came to be the prototype steam engine for industrial use.  Once the steam engine was perfected, it could then be employed for thousands of different uses.  It could be used to turn textile machinery.  It could turn a saw mill.  It could turn the wheels of a locomotive.  The perfection of the steam engine, of course, ushered forth the development of the modern factory.  Man, subsequently, is no longer subject to the forces of nature.  He’s now able to harness nature.

Alright.  Where did the steam engine come from?  Any of you know the etymology – that’s not the right word – the intellectual origin of the James Watt steam engine?  It was a technological application of Newton’s laws of motion.  No laws of motion, no steam engine.  I’d like to also make clear that if it were not for the parallel development of private property through the hands of John Locke and his successors, the steam engine would have been totally useless because coercion eliminates production.

And when was the first steam engine we have any record of developed?  Two thousand years before James Watt, a man, some of you have heard of, Hero, also of Alexandria, living in the 2nd century B.C., developed a steam engine which, in principle, was even superior to the James Watt steam engine.  It was based on the principle of the turbine.  And it is a very simple principle compared to the cumbersome James Watt steam engine.  Hero made the steam engine but it was forgotten.  As a matter of fact, it was used as a toy for children.  It was never used as a source of power.   Why?  Now there’s a simple explanation for it.  The Hero steam engine came two thousand years before Newton.  It’s one of those parallel lines.  It wasn’t connected up with anything else.  It was never used as a source of power in a factory for a very good reason.  There weren’t any factories.  It was never used to power a locomotive because there weren’t any locomotives to power.  The Hero development was independent.  It had no connection with anything else.  Turbines are post-Newtonian achievements.  The concept goes back several thousand years before Newton, but not until Newton do we know what to do with it.  Turbines have a very broad application in today’s technology.

Another reason that nothing came of the Hero’s steam engine was the fact that John Locke’s concept of property had not yet been developed.  The concept of property protection – that’s post Newtonian, through the hands of John Locke.  John Locke is a Newtonian.  Now what would have happened to the steam engine if it had been employed to operate a factory?  The factory would have soon become the center of wealth.  At this point, if not sooner, the bureaucratic vultures would have descended upon the factory owners. “You owe this wealth to Cesar.  You owe this to Alexander the Great”.  Except Alexander wasn’t great.  That’s part of the fraud.  Historians have told us he’s great. He’s not great.  A better name would be Alexander the Thug.  He was just a big thug.  What’s great about that?  And so, nothing would have developed.

Now both the American and the Industrial Revolutions are called in this theory sub-branches of a greater revolution called the Liberal Revolution, Liberal coming from libre meaning free. The Industrial Revolution refers to the technological aspect.  The American Revolution represents the social aspect.  I like to point out that although the American Revolution by 1977 has faltered, it’s not dead; it’s just beginning.  And the first stage of the American Revolution was successful to a large degree.  It eliminated force but what it did not eliminate was fraud which has led to our present state of collapse and catastrophe.  Incidentally, do you notice that what you’re reading about in the daily newspaper is the collapse and destruction of the American republic?  How many of you are sensitive to that?  You’re reading about in the daily newspaper the death of your own society.  It’s not pleasant.

I think it is quite amazing how successful the American Revolution was on the first try.  Because this represents the first attempt in history to protect property on a conscious and deliberate basis.  The entire country was founded upon the principle that individuals have property rights.  I already mentioned in Lecture 4, in a century and a half, just by doing a little better job than anyone else had ever done in all history to protect only one kind of property, secondary property, we generated more wealth than the combined total of all prior civilizations with a small percentage of the total population and a small percentage of the total land mass.  And that is very impressive if you understand it.

It’s unbelievable how well this experiment worked especially when you consider how difficult it is to get a successful experiment in physics.  A good illustration would be Thomas Edison’s attempt to find a proper filament for the electric lamp.  Before Edison could manufacture a successful electric lamp, one that could be sold commercially, he had to experiment with many different materials.  I think I mentioned this.  He attempted somewhere in the general magnitude of 25,000 different filaments before he discovered, finally, the carbonized bamboo filament which some years later was replaced with the tungsten filament.  And how many of us, as I think I asked you, would have given up long before we had 25,000 failures?  How many of you would have given up?  Talk about discouraging.  Well, we just had our 15,000th failure.  I don’t know.

Anyhow, one day in desperation, before they discovered the solution, Edison was sitting there and one of his colleagues, with a long, red, flowing beard, was next to him.  Edison reached over, yanked a hair out of his beard, and he tried that one out.  It turned out to be one of the 24, 999 or so that didn’t work, although it’s somewhat interesting to speculate what might have happened if that had turned out to be the right one.  Imagine you could make a fortune growing…if you had a red beard.  I don’t know if it would be red lights, I don’t know.  Anyhow.  Orange light.

The American Revolution, then, was partially successful in establishing some degree of liberty.  We established what we call partial secondary capitalism or a social structure that partly protected secondary property.  And the revolution came about, the Thomas Paine revolution, came about as a direct result of the Newtonian revolution about a century later.  In other words, the American Revolution is about a century post-Newtonian integration.  The two greatest revolutionaries in history are Isaac Newton and Thomas Paine.

We see then that the integration of Isaac Newton produced the major influence that launched the Industrial Revolution and capitalism.  The reverse relationship was also important.  What has science gotten from capitalism?  One of the important derivatives of capitalism is more leisure time.  Great numbers of people are able to spend their time making new discoveries. They don’t have to spend all of their time worrying about, for example, where their next meal is coming from.  And someone made the statement recently that the world is moving so fast these days, the man who says it can’t be done is generally interrupted by someone doing it.  This is partly due to what is called capital accumulation.  High production through higher quality tools, more tools, more leverage, more property being produced.  The Industrial Revolution has made it possible for today’s luxuries to be tomorrow’s necessities.  Today, most Americans consider automobiles and telephones to be necessities of life. Most people couldn’t imagine a world without television.

The concept of freedom, in part at least, stems from partial secondary capitalism.  And total capitalism, which I will introduce you to this evening, results ultimately in freedom.  I’d like to point out that what we have been given, especially in the academic community on the subject of capitalism, that is what we have been told by the historians, the economics professors and the social so-called scientists and the sociologists and the history professors, it is almost a total distortion of reality.  What you’re hearing on the subject now is not an apology for capitalism because you cannot apologize for what has never existed.  There was never a failure of laissez-faire capitalism.  Why?  We have never even come close to total laissez-faire capitalism.  But something did fail.  And we must clearly understand what did fail because what failed was destined to fail.  What failed was not the principle of capitalism but what we call partial secondary capitalism or historical capitalism.  And the reason that it failed is not the one offered by the pseudointellectuals.

Partial secondary capitalism failed because it left out the most important part of a rational and moral social structure.  It failed to recognize the importance of what kind of property?  Primary property.  It failed to include a technology to protect primary property from plunder.  And the people who were left out of the system only happen to be those people who contribute the most to the advancement of progress in mankind and prosperity – the cosmological and the technological innovators.  Partial secondary capitalism offered no protection for primary property and only partly protected secondary property.  Ladies and gentlemen, partial secondary capitalism is utopian.  Historical capitalism never could have worked in the first place.

As a matter of fact, historical capitalism is untenable.  In other words, it cannot be defended on any rational or scientific basis.  However, that does not alter the fact that historical, or partial secondary capitalism, was a giant improvement on the past.  In the end, there’s only one concept of capitalism that will work.  It’s this one.  Total capitalism is that societal structure whose mechanism is capable of protecting all forms of private property completely.

And by simply implementing capitalism, the derivative of that is called freedom.  What is freedom?  The societal condition where everyone has liberty and there is not one slave.  Or everyone has 100% control over his property.  And the way you implement that is to implement capitalism which is a mechanism that protects all the property and the result is freedom.  Freedom has an origin only in total capitalism.  Now, of course, this structure has never existed.  Freedom has never existed.  And it will be difficult to implement.  But remember difficult is not the same as impossible.  Every major achievement was difficult.  If it’s not difficult, you don’t call it a major achievement.

But let’s take a moment to look at some of the most common misconceptions of partial secondary capitalism because, as I said, even partial secondary capitalism was a major step forward over no capitalism.  You will find that partial secondary capitalism has been more viciously attacked than I would say even the Spanish Inquisition.  It has been denounced by almost all, by the genuine intellectual, pseudo, part-time, and compartmentalized intellectuals, almost to a man or woman, have denounced historical capitalism in one form or another.  And although there is some justification for these attacks, there’s been a widespread misinterpretation of history which has brought about a gross exaggeration of the so-called evils of capitalism.

For example, we have been told, you were told, I was told, principally in school, capitalism produces sweatshops in which the workers are forced to work long hours, sweatshops in which the children are chained to the machinery, sweatshops in which the workers are subjected to poor working conditions, long hours, low wages.  Let me see a show of hands.  How many of  you were told these kinds of things in school?  Hmm. I certainly was.  Alright.

Is capitalism responsible for these conditions?  Well, did these conditions really exist?  Did we have sweatshops in this country in the 19th century?  Yes we did.  We did have sweatshops.  No question about it.  Alright.  The next obvious question is, if we had sweatshops, then what is a sweatshop?  Define sweatshop.  Well, presumably a shop in which people sweat.  Now, I know it’s more than that.  Alright, how much more than that?

Alright, let’s use the scientific method, as a tool, to put it crudely, to find out what the hell is going on in the present, in the past, and what can we predict in the future.  Let’s use this most powerful tool and let’s use truth and validity as a standard.  Because it doesn’t do any good to have a brilliant mind unless you have access to these tools.

To illustrate, Hitler, if he was not brilliant, at least he was extremely intelligent, but look at the result.  By 20th century standards, the factory of the 19th century looks very primitive.  It did not have thermostatically controlled air conditioning or forced air heating.  It did not have fluorescent lighting, indoor plumbing systems, vending machines, piped in music, automatic sprinkler systems to fight fire, no television sets in the lounges, no Muzak.  We’re told that the reason that we have all of these improvements is due to the humanitarian efforts of the labor union leaders and the politicians who introduced the labor legislation.  That is pure nonsense, baloney, and bunk squared.  You don’t even have to be a professional historian to know that air conditioning, thermostatically controlled heat, fluorescent lighting, piped in music, color television, that these innovations were not available to anyone in the market until what century?  The 20th century.  Do you have to be an historian to know that?  No.

Now most of the early industrial developments in this country occurred where?  In the northeastern states.  How many of you have been in the Northeast in the summer?  Let’s see a show of hands.  Well, I have and the humidity is absolutely unbelievable.  I mean, and speaking as a native Californian, you can’t believe it.  I mean, it’s not only the Northeast.  There’s other parts of the country as well.  But I mean you sweat.  You sweat.  All day long.  I’ve been in my bathing suit at 2 o’clock in the morning out by the pool and you sweat.  And I feel like I need a bath 24 hours a day.  I’m no sooner out of the bath and I feel like I need another one.  How many of you will bear testimony to…. it’s unbelievable.  I mean unless you happen to be in an air-conditioned, dehumidified building or automobile, I mean it’s just unbelievable.  It’s been said, not by myself, I don’t know who first noted this, but if the Pilgrims had landed in California, they would just now be getting around to settle the east coast.  Who’d want to go there?  Anyhow.  It would still be a wilderness.

Well, alright.  Who sweats in the Northeast in the summer at this time?  Everyone.  There are two classes of people at this time, those who work in factories and those who do not.  Of these two, which ones sweat?  All of them.  Capitalism did not produce the summer humidity in the northeastern states.  As a matter of fact, it was there before the Indians.

Alright, let’s use a little, I was going to say, common sense, but it’s not common.  If the sense you’re referring to is rationality, it’s not common.   Anyhow.  Alright.  Let’s say it’s summer.  And you work in a so-called sweaty shop.  Or rather, let’s say it’s not summer.  Everyone is sweating in the summer.  Let’s say it’s now winter and you work in one of these sweaty shops.  Raise your hand if you can think of some way to cool off the sweatshop in the winter.  Anyone think of a way to do this?  Open a window.  Open a door.  Open two doors, a couple of windows. Let’s say there’s a blizzard blowing outside.  If you open a couple of doors, will this cool off the sweatiest sweat shop soon, especially when you’ve got a blizzard going through?  Of course.  Well, do you think that might have occurred to anyone?  Is there any reason this couldn’t be done?  No.  You open some windows and get some ventilation.

And so, it’s easy to cool things off when it’s cold outside.  And it’s difficult for everyone to cool things off when it’s warm outside when you have low technology.  Is this observable?  Hmm.  Capitalism did not produce the sweatshops.  Capitalism eliminated the sweatshops through the development of technological innovation such as air conditioning.  Air conditioning technology comes out of our understanding of the laws of thermodynamics.  That’s post-Newtonian.  A refrigerator is nothing more than a backward heat engine which is understandable only if you understand the laws of thermodynamics.

I can assure you, ladies and gentlemen, that air conditioning was not developed by the politicians or by the union leaders.  As a matter of fact, I’m hard pressed to identify one single innovation, one product that has ever been produced by a politician or a union leader in all history that has done anything to improve the working conditions of the worker or raise the standard of living.  And I offer that as a continuing challenge.  If you can identify one such politician or labor leader, then bring up his name in the discussion period.  So far, in teaching this course for thirteen years, no one has presented a candidate.  If you have one, introduce it at the workshop session.

© Sustainable Civilization Institute 2010