Albert Einstein may have made the discoveries that led to nuclear and solar power, lasers and even a physical description of space and time, but Sir Isaac Newton had a greater impact on science and mankind, according to a poll published Wednesday.
Posted on 11/23/2005 6:04:12 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Newton, the 17th-century English scientist most famous for describing the laws of gravity and motion, beat Einstein in two polls conducted by eminent London-based scientific academy, the Royal Society.
More than 1,300 members of the public and 345 Royal Society scientists were asked separately which famous scientist made a bigger overall contribution to science, given the state of knowledge during his time, and which made a bigger positive contribution to humankind.
Newton was the winner on all counts, though he beat the German-born Einstein by only 0.2 of a percentage point (50.1 percent to 49.9 percent) in the public poll on who made the bigger contribution to mankind.
The margin was greater among scientists: 60.9 percent for Newton and 39.1 percent for Einstein.
The results were announced ahead of the "Einstein vs. Newton" debate, a public lecture at the Royal Society on Wednesday evening.
"Many people would say that comparing Newton and Einstein is like comparing apples and oranges, but what really matters is that people are appreciating the huge amount that both these physicists achieved, and that their impact on the world stretched far beyond the laboratory and the equation," said Royal Society president Lord Peter May.
Pro-Newton scientists argue he led the transition from an era of superstition and dogma to the modern scientific method.
His greatest work, the "Principia Mathematica", showed that gravity was a universal force that applied to all objects in the universe, finally ruling out the belief that the laws of motion were different for objects on Earth and in the heavens.
Einstein's supporters point out that his celebrated theory of relativity disproved Newton's beliefs on space and time and led to theories about the creation of the universe, black holes and parallel universes.
He also proved mathematically that atoms exist and that light is made of particles called photons, setting the theoretical foundations for nuclear bombs and solar power.
For what it's worth, my top ten most influential scientists of all time would be:
1. Newton
2. Aristotle
3. Darwin
4. Gallileo
5. Copernicus
6. Einstein
7. Mendel
8. Maxwell
9. Fleming
10. Watt
Admittedly, I'm just an amateur student of history. But I'm stuck at work late and needed a break, so I thought I'd see if I'd I get a reaction...
My browser stuck. LOL! Now which mathematician had something to do with that! Liebnitz or Newton's infinite series? LOL!
Yes and no. (Actually, I was just saying what Aristotle said many years ago. Of course, he was not completely correct.)
You have to read ALL of my posts on this thread and those of "A. Pole". The correct answer is that heavier things can fall at greater, lesser, or the same rate as light objects, depending upon the situation. One way is by varying the upward force exerted by air as each object falls.
You don't think Louis Pasteur merits the top 10?
Frankly, you might make a stronger argument about the laws of motion because Galileo made quite a lot of headway on those before Newton, and Galileo started from scratch. Newton reformulated them.
I'm not saying Leibnitz was a plagiarer. But he clearly had Newton's ideas, and they did exchange letters. Leibnitz would not likely have published what he did without Newton.
Personally, I think any one of Newton's contributions: gravity, laws of motion, or calculus were bigger deals than relativity, though I'm not suggesting that Einstein's contribution was small. It just wasn't as big as Newton's.
I would say that maybe Einstein's insight was more brilliant than Newton's were, but when you think of it, the laws of gravity really were a major insight.
I like Einstein ,but Newton is more important.
"Taking the current subject for example: If anything, Newton's obsession with fringe religious research (and alchemy, but that's another subject) wasted valuable intellect and time that would have been far more profitably spent doing further work in mathematics or science."
You picked the absoulte worst example in Newton. Newton only did science in his search for God.
No religion, no science out of Newton.
I'd say Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Maxwell....
Maybe I'd flip Einstein and Maxwell. Close call.
Yeah, but were the polls conducted scientifically.
Newton calculator after inventing it
Einstein calculator..
Look at all the stuff on it, DRG to call your homey for some weed, SIN for when you need to do something bad, COS when you need some advice from Cosby, TAN when you come across as too white, and a lot of other stuff you can`t do on Newton calculator
I was debating back and forth between Pasteur and Watt. Now that you mention it, I think I would flip those two. But it's close.
But he clearly had Newton's ideas, and they did exchange letters. Leibnitz would not likely have published what he did without Newton.
There is nothing clear about it. The consensus is now rather the opposite.
Leibnitz published a lot on a variety of subjects. It is perfectly natural for him to have come up with the calculus in his other pursuits.
And a lot of his calculus was entirely unique and original to him.
And once again, Leibnitz and Newton never exchanged letters.
A good argument could be made that all of this came about because of Newton's notorious jealousy and crankiness. (He probably breathed too many mercury fumes. Cf. Faraday.)
If he hadn't made these accusations, it would have never come up. And Leibnitz wasn't the only person Newton made accusations against by a long shot.
Not to demean Newton's rightful historical prominence at all, but just out of curiosity I wonder how much Newton's vote total by the Royal Society was enhanced by the fact that he was "one of the hometown boys" -- Newton was a very prominent early member of the Royal Society itself.
Even if the RS members weren't influenced by a fraternal connection to Newton, they'd still have a lot of reverence for Newton instilled into them via the long shadow Newton still casts over the Royal Society, more so than for "intermural" scientists like Einstein, etc.
It would be like an American politician being more prone to vote for Jefferson than for Winston Churchill in some poll of great leaders, just from a greater familiarity and common roots, regardless of their merits relating to the actual poll question.
Great thanks! I'll check it out. It's a good price, too.
Hey Einstein worked in that patent office, how do we know he didn`t rip off E=MC2 from somebody?
Apparently nobody seems to like Enrico Fermi.
Maxwell is a gool choice I must concur.
OMG, That's hilarious! You're killing me!
You mean, "Watt's on second"? Who's on first?
I don't know. ("Third base!!")
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.