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.
Well, that sounds like a good tale. You have so many to tell!
PS. I'll keep hands off of perfervid from now on! I confess: I stole it from you. :)
???
No, you have my permission to use it. Immitation is the ... well you know the rest. I watched the history channel, first episode, about the first crusade, and thus was confused about your geography. I take it the 4th crusade was from the Balkans or something?
When Heraclius was emperor at the time of the Muslim conquest the Byzantines still ruled Italy and the south of Spain. My supposition is that had the Byzantines held against the initial Arab attack they would've extended their rule across Western Europe (in particular Gaul) long before the Crusades. It was due to the post-Arab decline that Italy was lost by the Byzantines (and of course the Muslims conquered Spain).
I don't view France as a southeastern province.
The Fourth Crusade was initiated and manipulated by the Doge of Venice, and Venice would've likely been ruled by the Byzantines in the 1200s if the Muslims had not conquered Egypt and Syria. Actually, had the Byzantines consolidated their hold in Italy again, Venice probably wouldn't have amounted to much at all. It was founded by refugees fleeing the Lombards in 568 and really didn't amount to much in the 7th century. Its value was its geographic defenses and if reasserted Byzantine rule had mitigated the endemic threat of marauding thugs many of its later residents would've likely stayed on firmer ground..
hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
By the way, have a great Thanksgiving. I am retiring to the desolation of the desert for three days, to ponder the works of Mohammed.
I'm referring to Egypt and Syria as the southeastern provinces. Had the Byzantines not lost Egypt and Syria, they should've been able to hold Italy and Spain. It was the loss of Egypt and Syria that cast Byzantium into two centuries of decline.
And a very Happy Thanksgiving to you too! Speaking of which, it's time for some shuteye.
Read City of Fallen Angels. It isn't as good as the guy's Savannah book, but it is good. I finally got a handle of what Doge meant. Before that, the only context I had was the Doge of Downey, California, home of a division of Bechtel.
Actually, he did. At least he was first to invent it but a man by the name of Liebwitz independently derived the calculus and published it first. Newton later published his version of calculus which turned out to be more useful in physics, engineering, etc. See the following link for details:
http://www1.umn.edu/ships/9-1/calculus.htm
"Let`s see ... a bunch of English scientists vote for the English scientist."
Latest poll results:
87 percent of English football fans think the English team plays better than the German team.
Good analogy. Still, in a contest between Newton and Einstein, I think a lot of us in the US would vote for Newton.
Foundational work is almost certain to be regarded as more important than that which follows afterward. Not just because it's foundational, but because it was done at a time when it was also pioneering. Einstein came along when universities had physics teachers, there were journals, etc. It was easier for him, and everyone else, to learn the field. But then -- of course -- it takes an "Einstein" to go where Einstein went.
In Newton's time it was far more difficult to be a scientist. For Galileo, it was literally life-threatening to be a scientist.
It's usually the case that the farther back you go, the "greater" the men become, because: (a) their work was more original, groundbreaking, and essential than what came afterward; and (b) their work was often done against a background that was incredibly hostile, when rational thought was not only dangerous, but virtually non-existent.
Earlier in the thread, someone mentioned Aristotle. He'll get my vote. There's not much that's more foundational than logic.
My guess on Einstein is Relativity. That was pretty weird for the time (and still is), but I am sure it would have been figured out as we found more evidence that fast moving particles age more slowly.
There are particles (mesons) formed high in the atmosphere due to collisions that should only be able to travel down so far because they have a short lifetime. But they were found at a lower altitude, meaning they aged more slowly in our frame of reference. This one would have been solved. It was just too odd to ignore. Also, there were astronomical anomalies that got people thinking, too.
As for Newton, all of his stuff would have been done eventually. But what made his work so good was the fact that physics was pretty bare at the time and he didn't have a lot to work with in 1666 at age 24.
Or Carl Sagan. These kinds of comparisons are invidious. I think a fair characterization was that Newton's discoveries were more revolutionary, Einstein's more subtle.
It is far too much to credit Newton with the invention of the scientific method. Rather, I think he can be credited as the most important pioneer in the invention of analytic physics, the application of mathematical technique to the solution of physical problems. It needs to be noted, however, that Newtonian mechanics are incomplete, especially in that it is impossible to define a meaningful inertial or rest reference frame. By showing that Kepler's Laws could be explained by a few simple axioms that could be applied to a great many other physical problems as well, he forever changed the way physicists looked at the world.
Einstein was able to apply simple insights brilliantly to arrive at consistent results. If ones results are internally consistent, they may even bear on the real world. His first such insight was that all inertial frames are equivalent. With this simple assumption, he could explain the Michealson-Morely results and establish the equivalence of matter and energy. (E=mc2, because it only makes sense!)
Newton was wrong.
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.