Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Newton more important than Einstein: poll
PhysOrg.com ^ | 23 November 2005 | Staff

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.


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.

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: alberteinstein; crevolist; einstein; isaacnewton; newton; physics; principia; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 341-352 next last
To: AntiGuv

It didn't seem to do in the Arabs.


221 posted on 11/23/2005 10:07:07 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Torie

You never played Stratego?


222 posted on 11/23/2005 10:08:01 PM PST by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill

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.


223 posted on 11/23/2005 10:09:26 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Torie

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.


224 posted on 11/23/2005 10:10:10 PM PST by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Of course it did in the Arabs. The Arabs never took Anatolia where the thema system was established. When they attacked Syria and Egypt, as I already mentioned, the thema system was not in place there. They were still barely in the course of recovery from the Persian invasions.
225 posted on 11/23/2005 10:11:42 PM PST by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

But if it was so good, why were not the newly installed Arabs send back to Mecca?


226 posted on 11/23/2005 10:12:47 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Torie

*sigh*


227 posted on 11/23/2005 10:13:20 PM PST by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

Good but not great eh? :)


228 posted on 11/23/2005 10:17:34 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

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


229 posted on 11/23/2005 10:18:29 PM PST by MarkL (I didn't get to where I am today by worrying about what I'd feel like tomorrow!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

What religion are those living in Anatolia these days I wonder? Somehow, the Islamic message got out far and wide.


230 posted on 11/23/2005 10:20:44 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Torie
The thema system was not developed to its full glory until the reign of Constans II, by the 660s basically. By that time, the Empire had otherwise fallen into decline and would soon afterward also get wracked up for a century over the silliest of nonsensical religious conflicts (they were fighting over whether or not icons are idols). Egypt and Syria had been the wealthiest provinces of the Empire, along with Anatolia, and their loss was irreparable. In other words, by the time that the Byzantines were in shape again, they were robbed of the men and grain of Egypt & Syria which was now part of the Arab arsenal instead. Moreover, the Monophysites of those provinces were happier (at that time) under Muslim rule than they had been under Orthodox rule.
231 posted on 11/23/2005 10:22:06 PM PST by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Torie

Anatolia was conquered by the Seljuk Turks and then the Ottoman Turks. Turks are not Arabs.


232 posted on 11/23/2005 10:22:45 PM PST by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Moreover, the Monophysites of those provinces were happier (at that time) under Muslim rule than they had been under Orthodox rule.

Well, of course. I learned that in grammar school.

233 posted on 11/23/2005 10:23:54 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

As I said, the message got out. I am aware that Turks are not Arabs. Just ask the Kurds. Maybe they are neither. :)


234 posted on 11/23/2005 10:25:26 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Torie

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.


235 posted on 11/23/2005 10:26:40 PM PST by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Torie

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.


236 posted on 11/23/2005 10:29:33 PM PST by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Torie
If the Turks weren't Muslims then my guess is they'd be Buddhists, and Buddhists are very generally far less perfervid than Muslims. :)
237 posted on 11/23/2005 10:31:32 PM PST by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Now you are stealing my repertoire, in this case one that I picked up from Churchill, perfervid. Have you no shame? You should write a book about history if Mohammed had been born 20 years later. Would we now be at the end of history if that had occured, putting aside the Chinese?
238 posted on 11/23/2005 10:34:34 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Torie
History has a way of reasserting itself no matter what. But, to be sure, if the Muslim conquest had failed, then it's quite probable in my view that the Roman Empire would've been restored to the full height and reach of its power by the turn of the first millennium, and there's certainly an argument to be made that much of what history we would have now would be internal disputes in one sprawling imperium stretching at least from Iberia to Persia.
239 posted on 11/23/2005 10:39:39 PM PST by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: Torie

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.


240 posted on 11/23/2005 10:43:12 PM PST by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 341-352 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson