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.
It didn't seem to do in the Arabs.
You never played Stratego?
Ya, I did about 40 years ago. I haven't thought about that game for almost the same time, until you mentioned it. Thanks for validating that I am not quite ready for being put into a conservatorship.
When the Muslims attacked Syria in 634 it was merely seven years after Heraclius' triumph over the Persians in 627. The Persians were themselves attacked in 637. Had the equivalent attacks instead taken place twenty years later they should've easily been beaten back by both the Byzantines and the Sassanids.
But if it was so good, why were not the newly installed Arabs send back to Mecca?
*sigh*
Good but not great eh? :)
And don't forget Newton's development of the calculus, though some say that he "borrowed" from Leibnitz, while others say he developed it independantly.
His work in mathematics was a major part of defining the "language" of science.
Mark
What religion are those living in Anatolia these days I wonder? Somehow, the Islamic message got out far and wide.
Anatolia was conquered by the Seljuk Turks and then the Ottoman Turks. Turks are not Arabs.
Well, of course. I learned that in grammar school.
As I said, the message got out. I am aware that Turks are not Arabs. Just ask the Kurds. Maybe they are neither. :)
And that happened because the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople and shattered the Byzantine Empire, and they were able to do so because they were invited in by some imbecile rivals to the Byzantine throne. Moreover, the ultimate reason (almost certainly) that the Byzantines were not in control of the lands where the Crusaders originated was because of the earlier Arab conquest of the southeastern provinces. Finally, had the Byzantines fended off the Arabs in, say, the 650s, the Turks would probably not have been Muslims anyhow.
Although, to be sure, the Byzantine defeat by the Ottomans at Manzikert in 1071 preceded the Fourth Crusade sack of Constantinople in 1204, but the Byzantines recovered from the former. They would never recover from the latter, and inexorably fell to the Ottomans.
By the way, the alternate history timeline that has always fascinated me the most is what would've happened if the Byzantine Empress Irene (frigid b!tch) had accepted the proposal of marriage by the Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne.
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.