01 Aug 08
Originally posted by adam warlockThat is perfectly correct, but because of both his bad notation and English mathematicians patriotism English mathematics was held up (certainly in this field) for a long time.
Leibniz had a better notation but Newton certainlyknew how to use calculus much better than Leibniz. He solved harder and deeper problems with it.
01 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI think Swlabr probably saw an advert for this:
I think maybe you just typed Dawkins instead of Darwin. Freudian slip, looks like to me.
Monday 4th August 2004, 20:00bst, Channel 4
The Genius of Charles Darwin
Richard Dawkins presents the ultimate guide to Darwin and his revolutionary theory of evolution by natural selection.
It's the first one of a series. I've set it to record.
As to the original question, I'd certainly put Darwin up there, though it could just as easily have been Wallace. I'd probably also agree with those who argued for Newton being the most influential though.
It's interesting, in an intellectual sense, that most people put Newton above Darwin when Newton's theories have been proved wrong but Darwin's have not. It's an example I think of they way in which Science does not have to be 100% correct to be useful.
01 Aug 08
Originally posted by Penguin"...Newton's theories have been proved wrong..."?
I think Swlabr probably saw an advert for this:
[b]Monday 4th August 2004, 20:00bst, Channel 4
The Genius of Charles Darwin
Richard Dawkins presents the ultimate guide to Darwin and his revolutionary theory of evolution by natural selection.
It's the first one of a series. I've set it to record.
As to the original question, I'd certainl ...[text shortened]... mple I think of they way in which Science does not have to be 100% correct to be useful.[/b]
What theories do you refer to?
01 Aug 08
Originally posted by PenguinYou must be referring to Einstein's theory of Relativity, but at our normal velocities even for spacecraft, Newton's laws of gravitation work quite well and you can still use his formulas to navigate spacecraft around the solar system. It's only when you are going near the speed of light does Relativity become more accurate at that sort of thing.
I think Swlabr probably saw an advert for this:
[b]Monday 4th August 2004, 20:00bst, Channel 4
The Genius of Charles Darwin
Richard Dawkins presents the ultimate guide to Darwin and his revolutionary theory of evolution by natural selection.
It's the first one of a series. I've set it to record.
As to the original question, I'd certainl ...[text shortened]... mple I think of they way in which Science does not have to be 100% correct to be useful.[/b]
Newtons laws have not been disproved, only slightly modified, very very slightly modified for ordinary speeds.
01 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseIndeed.
You must be referring to Einstein's theory of Relativity, but at our normal velocities even for spacecraft, Newton's laws of gravitation work quite well and you can still use his formulas to navigate spacecraft around the solar system. It's only when you are going near the speed of light does Relativity become more accurate at that sort of thing.
Newtons l ...[text shortened]... not been disproved, only slightly modified, very very slightly modified for ordinary speeds.
Infact, "For every force there is an equal and opposite force" is still valid even in the relativistic limit.
Also, "Force is equal to the rate of change of momentum" (F = dp/dt) is also still valid. However, you need to use the relativistic mass, not simply the rest mass as Newton did. Also, the relativistic acceleration must be used. But if you acount for these things then is laws hold up just fine.
It is interesting to note that Newton's laws required him to define a stationary "ether", relative to which all things moved. Newton himself was awear that this was a majoy weakness of his theory, but was unable to think of a way around it.
Also, let us not forget all the other amazing things Newton came up with, such as his optics exeriments to demonstrate that white light was a mixture of colours and many, many, many others.
01 Aug 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasAs others have mentioned, I was thinking of his laws of motion. And maybe they have 'needed adjustment' rather than 'been proved wrong'. In which case they are not much different to Darwin's ideas.
"...Newton's theories have been proved wrong..."?
What theories do you refer to?
But could it not be said that his laws of motion have had their 'spheres of influence' reduced? It used to be thought that F=MA was true at all scales of size and velocity until Einstein came along and showed that it falls down close to light speed. I don't think Darwin's theory has suffered the same way.
Its also true though that Newton did a lot more work in many other fields.
Can I retract my point?
---- Penguin.
01 Aug 08
Originally posted by PenguinNewtons theories have been proved an incredibly useful approximation for the more detailed theories for our purposes. They're mathematically fleshed out and can be used to predict future events to a tremendous precision.
I think Swlabr probably saw an advert for this:
[b]Monday 4th August 2004, 20:00bst, Channel 4
The Genius of Charles Darwin
Richard Dawkins presents the ultimate guide to Darwin and his revolutionary theory of evolution by natural selection.
It's the first one of a series. I've set it to record.
As to the original question, I'd certainl ...[text shortened]... mple I think of they way in which Science does not have to be 100% correct to be useful.[/b]
Evolution not in the same class until you get into DNA analysis at the very least.
01 Aug 08
Originally posted by Penguinaccording to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable
As others have mentioned, I was thinking of his laws of motion. And maybe they have 'needed adjustment' rather than 'been proved wrong'. In which case they are not much different to Darwin's ideas.
But could it not be said that his laws of motion have had their 'spheres of influence' reduced? It used to be thought that F=MA was true at all scales of size ...[text shortened]... n did a lot more work in many other fields.
Can I retract my point?
---- Penguin.
Albert Einstein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_%28classical_element%29
04 Aug 08
Originally posted by PenguinI think we retracted it for you🙂
As others have mentioned, I was thinking of his laws of motion. And maybe they have 'needed adjustment' rather than 'been proved wrong'. In which case they are not much different to Darwin's ideas.
But could it not be said that his laws of motion have had their 'spheres of influence' reduced? It used to be thought that F=MA was true at all scales of size ...[text shortened]... n did a lot more work in many other fields.
Can I retract my point?
---- Penguin.
16 Sep 08
Originally posted by SwlabrI would say God
I saw an advert for a TV program the other day. In this advert it claimed that Dawkins was the "most influential scientist of all time". I immediately started to wonder. Personally, I think this is completely wrong. Probably Newton should takethis crown. But then, he was interested in alchemy...
So, does anyone else have any opinions?
16 Sep 08
I think among these top scientist, Michael Faraday should be included. Not only did he acomplished a lot in the field of electricity, he did all of this without any formal education!!!
Also, the theory the atom by Niels Bohr, although correct only for Hydrogen, deserves some praising as well.
If I were to choose a number scientist, it would have to be either Newton or Planck. This guy laid the foundation for what became to be known as the quantum mechanics and Eistein's theory of relativity.
If it weren't for Planck, I think quantum mechanics would have been delayed and technology today wouldn't be so advanced. I'm not saying Newton's accomplishments were not astounding, but I think Planck deserves to be there as well.