Einstein Or Newton

[tommyedison]

He was a genius but not the genius Einstein was.

-Nate

What are your reasons?

It is very difficult to judge between the two.

It is somewhat like judging between Ayn Rand and Aristotle.

[CannonBall]

What are your reasons?

It is very difficult to judge between the two.

It is somewhat like judging between Ayn Rand and Aristotle.

It is not difficult to judge between the two.

As I've said before, he shouldn't get the credit for calculus that he is getting (our modern calc is based on what leibniz did, not newton)

The physical equations are nice for basic physics but when one gets into complex dynamics the LaGrange equations are far more useful i.e. faster and easier.

Yes, what he did was revolutionary, but not as much so as Einstein's findings. (I'm in a computer lab on campus so I can't get into this right now) I've said all this before in my other posts, I don't see why you have to ask my reasons if you've read any of the other posts by me in this thread.

-Nate

[stephen_speicher]

Newton was a hack. Leibniz designed modern calculus, however Newton is often given credit for it. Newton in fact had a very crude style of calc which wasn't nearly as clean or easy to use, Leibniz proposed his ideas and Newton, who was a Sir by this time and very powerful, blocked certain publications and essentially took credit for Leibniz's work. His theories in physics (classical mechanics) aren't correct although they hold up for anything not close to the speed of light, so they're just crude predictions of what is to be expected to happen. Relativity alone is enough to put Einstein over Newton in every way imaginable, that's without mentioning his other achievements.

-Nate

edit: basically, so many people were coming up with ideas at the time, Newton just had the power and hi-jacked calculus. No newton, no problem, just different names.

"Newton was a hack?" For someone who spews out such biting words, you are remarkably ignorant of historical and technical fact. I will not take the time to refute all of the nonsense contained in each of your sentences, but I will briefly address a couple of points

Since you place Einstein so far above Newton, you might want to pay a little attention to what Einstein himself had to say about Newton and his work.

The Eddington solar eclipse experiment of 1919 led to the first spectacular experimental confirmation of a unique prediction by general relativity. In response to the announcement of the experimental results, on November 7, 1919, the London Times proclaimed "Newtonian Ideas Overthrown" in a big headline. Afterwards, Einstein was asked by the Times to write a short article explaining relativity to the general public. Einstein's What is the Theory of Relativity appeared in the November 28, 1919 edition of the London Times. Here is a short excerpt where Einstein felt the need to clarify the issue in regard to Newton.

"Let no one suppose, however, that the mighty work of Newton can really be superseded by this or any other theory. His great and lucid ideas will retain their unique significance for all time as the foundation of our whole modern conceptual structure in the sphere of natural philosophy."

And, just eight years later:

"It is just two hundred years ago that Newton closed his eyes. We feel impelled at such a moment to remember this brilliant genius, who determined the course of western thought, research, and practice like no one else before or since. Not only was he brilliant as an inventor of certain key methods, but he also had a unique command of the empirical material available in his day, and he was marvelously inventive as regards detailed mathematical and physical methods of proof. For all these reason he deserves our deepest reverence. The figure of Newton has, however, an even greater importance than genius warrants because destiny placed him at a turning point in the history of the human intellect."

--Albert Einstein, Newton's Mechanik und ibr Einflub auf die Gestaltung der theoretischen Physik," Die Naturwissenschaften, 15, pp. 273-276, 1927. Also reprinted in English as Newton's Mechanics and Its Influence on the Shaping of Theoretical Physics," in Ideas and Opinions, pp. 253-261, Three Rivers Press, 1954/1982.

So much for your "hack" who makes "crude predictions," when Newton is looked at by a genius such as Einstein instead of one who is ignorant of fact.

As to the calculus and Leibniz, and your absurd claim that Newton "took credit for Leibniz's work," you again have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Newton developed the calculus (his method of "fluxions") a full decade before Leibniz. The "priority dispute" between Newton and Leibniz was first resolved as early as 1699 when Fatio de Duillier published his Lineae Brevissimi Descensus Investigato Geometrica Duplex, in which he ceded his own invention of the calculus to Newton but refused to acknowledge prior rights to Leibniz. Fatio implied, without actually investigating, that Leibniz may have seen Newton's own manuscripts prior to developing his calculus, but he left that to others to decide.

Over the course of the following centuries the priority issue was investigated by many scholars, and the overwhelming consensus is that Newton preceded Leibniz by some time. For instance, in Sir David Brewster's 1831 The Life of Sir Isaac Newton, London, John Murray, on page 216 Brewster notes: "By unaminous verdict of all nations, it has been decided that Newton invented fluxions at least ten years before Leibniz." Brewster goes on to note that although the evidence shows that some of Newton's early letters on this were perused by Leibniz, it is not likely that Leibniz based his calculus on these. But, unquestionably, "Newton was therefore the first inventor, and Leibniz the second. The consensus of more modern scholars, such as Richard S. Westfall, A. Rupert Hall, etc., scholars who now have access to documents not previously known to earlier scholars, all acknowledge that Newton has priority over Leibniz in developing the calculus.

You also seem to ignorantly confuse modern notation for conceptual methods. Indeed the Leibniz notation is predominant in modern calculus, but that does not mean that modern calculus is not conceptually influenced by the methods of Newton. In fact, it was Newton, through Colin Maclaurin's 1742 monumental two-volume Treatise of Fluxions that influenced the mainstream of mathematics in regard to important ideas and techniques. Recent scholarly studies continue to reveal just how much Newton's work was transmitted and expanded in 18th and 19th century works.

All in all, I must say I am more than dismayed to see such ignorant judgments made about Newton on this group. I myself have been publicly critical of Newton in certain regards, but my judgments are based on historical and technical facts, not ignorant and offensive assertions.

[stephen_speicher]

When mathematicians and scientists saw Newton's work they recognized his genius.    This is something you can't fake.

Yes, among those knowledgeable in the field Newton is generally considered among the top three mathematicians in history along with Archimedes and Gauss, if not the first.

[stephen_speicher]

Remember, in Newton's time, even the speed of light was not known ...

Actually, that is not true. Ole Roemer was the first to determine the finite speed of light based on the occultation of the moons of Jupiter in 1676, and Newton certainly was well aware of Roemer's experiment. In fact, he wrote about it in the Principia, as well as elsewhere.

"For it is now certain from the phenomena of Jupiter's satellites, confirmed by the observations of different astronomers, that light is propagated in succession, and requires about seven or eight minutes to travel from the sun to the earth."

--Scholium to Proposition XCVI in Newton's Principia.

And in Book I, Section XIV of the Principia, Newton discusses how the speed of light is affected by the density of the medium in which it travels. Also, throughout The Optiks/I] Newton further theorizes about the finite speed of light, as in Book II, Part III, Prop. X and XII.

Granted that the value of the speed of light known in Newton's time was certainly not as precise as it is known today, nevertheless it was known.

[stephen_speicher]

I don't know what you're talking about...my opinion is based completely on what I've learned in 4 years of using a lot of calc and a lot of physics. No Newton = no real loss ...

You might want to check if your University gives refunds.

[stephen_speicher]

... and in the method that we use today, that we use in the...LaGrange equations. Honestly, use them for a while and one might want to punch Newton in the face.

Do you think that the Lagrangian (or Hamilton's principle) was formulated in an intellectual vacuum? The Lagrangian started as a reformulation of classical mechanics, which would not have existed without Newton. And a snotty student like yourself wants to "punch Newton in the face?" There is nothing quite as obnoxious as an ignorant undergraduate or graduate student whom you let loose on the world too early, equipped with the "power" of the little that he has learned. Go educate yourself properly before you demean a genius like Newton, in comparison to whom you give new meaning to the infinitesimal.

[CannonBall]

Do you think that the Lagrangian (or Hamilton's principle) was formulated in an intellectual vacuum? The Lagrangian started as a reformulation of classical mechanics, which would not have existed without Newton. And a snotty student like yourself wants to "punch Newton in the face?"  There is nothing quite as obnoxious as an ignorant undergraduate or graduate student whom you let loose on the world too early, equipped with the "power" of the little that he has learned. Go educate yourself properly before you demean a genius like Newton, in comparison to whom you give new meaning to the infinitesimal.

If you find me "obnoxious and ignorant" you should discuss this with the professors who sparked these ideas, I’m sure they’d love to argue with you. I can see how Einstein was humble about Newton, but don’t doubt for a second that we would be exactly where we were today without him (Newton). The LaGrange equations were absolutely not formulated in a vacuum, obviously (what are you getting at? I’ve addressed this earlier, care to read?). I will stand by my regard for Newton, that’s great if smart people around the world and you guys here on objectivism online want to give Newton a great cosmic thank you, I do not disagree with that. However, in my field, what I use and what I do I would be fine without him. If independent confirmation of genius means anything, which apparently it does because everyone is regurgitating quotes from others, I have yet to find a professor or engineer at my college who places Newton at a “higher level of genius” than Einstein. I’m sorry, that I’ve been released too soon, I’m sorry that people in industry don’t use Newton, I’m sorry he’s all but obsolete. I was unaware on Newton’s influence on the grand unified theory. Honestly, to demean Einstein to the level of virtually a puppet of Newton, get real. And I can’t site my “ignorant and offensive assertions” other than I have been told that time and time again by certain professors in applied math and engineering, like I said earlier, take it up with them, maybe I should try and get a refund.

-Nate

Edit: Can the same quotes by Einstein for Newton not apply to Einstein, or a number of other geniuses for that matter? Furthermore, these attacks on my character and the personal insults are not proper for this forum. If you have a problem with what I say, reply. If you have a problem with me as a person, send me a private message, an e-mail or IM me.

[stephen_speicher]

If you find me "obnoxious and ignorant" you should discuss this with the professors who sparked these ideas, I’m sure they’d love to argue with you.

I have spent many years of my life working in science in academia, and I have discussed technical and historical aspects of physics with everyone from lowly grad students to Nobel Prize laureates, and never have I come across anyone so muddleheaded as to refer to Newton as a "hack." I have too much respect for my colleagues to think that what passes for judgment in your mind was "sparked" by anything that a professor actually said. Considering your demonstrated ability to pronounce judgments absent of substantiating facts, and your continued ability to misrepresent the few facts that you deign to mention, I think it more likely that the more reasonable views of your professors have become jumbled in your own mind. The things you uttered in this thread are so outrageous, and that coupled with your refusal to directly address the facts that were presented which refute the nonsense you spouted, makes it quite likely that the blame lies with your own muddled thinking, not with your professors.

I can see how Einstein was humble about Newton, but don’t doubt for a second that we would be exactly where we were today without him (Newton).

I can only repeat: you are remarkably ignorant of history and fact. I dare you to provide a single reputable source, a single journal reference to a scholarly paper that advances such an absurd thesis as the one you advance here. Newton's The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy is arguably the singlemost important scientific document in the history of science, and along with Newton's work in Opticks, it established the scientific method and the foundation for all of the science that followed. If you had even taken a beginning course in the history of physics, or read an introductory scholarly work in the field, you would be able to trace the development of modern physics from the foundation built by Newton. But, alas, all you can do is spout out nonsense.

The LaGrange equations were absolutely not formulated in a vacuum, obviously (what are you getting at? I’ve addressed this earlier, care to read?).

I read just fine, thank you. I was responding to your remark that "one might want to punch Newton in the face" because of the relative ease of the Lagrangian as compared to Newton's formulation. What I am getting at is that your irreverance is pathetic and it ignores the very fact that the Lagrangian was a reformulation of what Newton had created. Without the latter, there would be no former. So rather than acknowledge and admire the achievement of Newton in forming the base for what followed, you instead want to punch him in the face. What an ignorant and pathetic ingrate!

I will stand by my regard for Newton, that’s great if smart people around the world and you guys here on objectivism online want to give Newton a great cosmic thank you, I do not disagree with that. However, in my field, what I use and what I do I would be fine without him.

Only if, as you continue to demonstrate, you remain ignorant of the foundation on which modern physics was built.

If independent confirmation of genius means anything, which apparently it does because everyone is regurgitating quotes from others, I have yet to find a professor or engineer at my college who places Newton at a “higher level of genius” than Einstein.

That is NOT the issue. I possess a technical and historical expertise in regard to Einstein and relativity, and I revere no other physicist as I do Einstein. The issue is not your choice of Einstein over Newton, but rather your sheer and unadulterated ignorance as to why. You make judgments based on ignorance and when you do deign to provide evidence you are almost always completely wrong. When your ignorance is combined with your obnoxious behavior, with your apparent need to demean Newton with absurd accusations, then your conclusion becomes irrelevant when compared to your "argument." As a great admirer of Einstein, and as one who is knowledgeable about his life and his work, support for Einstein from the likes of you is not wanted.

Honestly, to demean Einstein to the level of virtually a puppet of Newton, get real.

It is difficult to tell if you are being dishonest, or just muddleheaded. Exactly where have I demeaned Einstein and relegated him to being a puppet of Newton? You have ignored all of the specific facts that I presented, and you ignored the words of Einstein himself, and instead of grasping the issue you make accusations of demeaning Einstein. It is not Einstein I demean, it is you, for your abject ignorance revolting attitude towards greatness.

And I can’t site my “ignorant and offensive assertions” other than I have been told that time and time again by certain professors in applied math and engineering

Reminds me of the attitude expressed of certain soldiers: "But I was just following orders."

like I said earlier, take it up with them

I suspect if your professors saw what you wrote they would distance themselves from you just as they would do from a plague.

maybe I should try and get a refund.

I was being facetious. The fault lies not with your university, but with you. Learn how to think and learn how to differentiate your feelings from facts. And think twice again before you attempt to tear down the greatness in men.

[Godless Capitalist]

wow! talk about hitting a gnat with a sledgehammer ...

[CannonBall]

Like I said in my previous post, this is not the place for personal attacks, or maybe it is. If you want to refute what I've stated as being fact that's fine, I see you've done that. Again, if you have an issue with me, I'm not going to turn this into an internet pissing match, e-mail me, PM me...anything, I'll admit more than anyone that I have a lot to learn and I'm arrogant. I'll also admit as I've said before, I do not literally mean Newton to be a hack, he gets more credit than he deserves. Like I said, I've been told more than once that Leibniz had calculus before newton, by people who I regard far more than you. The reason behind the publishing of what Newton did and his credit was due to his clout. A few people on here stated that calc was a reason that Newton was a "greater genius" than Einstein. I like how everything I say is taken literally by you, but it's my character flaw that I don't understand implied internet sarcasm. Thank you.

-Nate

edit: honetsly I'll argue this with you on IM, over e-mail or through PM's, but it's getting out of hand for a public forum. Maybe you do give professors more credit than to say Newton stole calc from Leibniz, perhaps you shouldn't.

"When someone offended him, he deleted all references to their names in his papers" this just came up as the first link after a search, but what do Euler or Bernoulli know, right?

[Thoyd Loki]

wow! talk about hitting a gnat with a sledgehammer ...

Yeah, no kidding. When I posted my wish of revenge on Cannonball's head last night, I hoped it was going to come in the form of Mr. Speicher!

[stephen_speicher]

Like I said in my previous post, this is not the place for personal attacks, or maybe it is.

Noting that you are ignorant is not a personal attack; it is a statement of fact when it is backed up by evidence just as I have done. When you pronounce absurdly negative judgments on a great man like Newton, absent of fact, identifying that for what it is is perfectly proper. When you ignore the evidence I provide and instead accuse me of "regurgitating quotes," that does not address the issues and it is a personal attack.

If you want to refute what I've stated as being fact that's fine, I see you've done that. Again, if you have an issue with me,

I do not have an "issue" with you; I have an issue with what you have repeatedly said.

Like I said, I've been told more than once that Leibniz had calculus before newton, by people who I regard far more than you.

I provided evidence that you did not address, and I could provide literally hundreds of scholarly references that back up what I said. I guess you would rather just accept the word of a few engineering and applied math professors, as you claim, than discover the facts for yourself.

The reason behind the publishing of what Newton did and his credit was due to his clout.

More unsubstantiated nonsense. I have right in front me Newton's Method of Fluxions, which was written in 1670-1671 and was first published posthumously in 1736. So it took 65 years till it was published, and then only after Newton had died. You really have no idea what you are talking about. Do facts mean anything to you at all?

A few people on here stated that calc was a reason that Newton was a "greater genius" than Einstein.

Really? I dare you to provide a quote from anyone here who said what you claim. I think rather that you demonstrate an inability to follow the arguments of others, which only lends more credence to my suspicion that you are distorting a great deal of what your professors actually say.

edit: honetsly I'll argue this with you on IM, over e-mail or through PM's, but it's getting out of hand for a public forum.

I have absolutely no interest in having a private discussion with you. My only interest here is in correcting and dispelling the very public and ignorant pronouncements you make about Newton.

Maybe you do give professors more credit than to say Newton stole calc from Leibniz, perhaps you shouldn't.

If any of your professors made such a statement then he is ignorant of the facts. That you compound his ignorance with your own in uncritically repeating what you are told, is a rather sad secondhanded approach.

[stephen_speicher]

"When someone offended him, he deleted all references to their names in his papers" this just came up as the first link after a search, but what do Euler or Bernoulli know, right?

I see that this was added after I had already replied. Amazing! First, is scouring the internet your means to knowledge? I hate to be the one to break it to you, but anyone can put up a web page and say what they want. Even you. Second, do you know what it takes to be a scholar in a field? John Lienhard is a mechanical engineer who has written 122 papers on that subject, but I find no reference to him in scholarly journals in mathematics and its history. Hal Hellman, who I know and is a nice-enough guy, is a popular writer who has made a modicum of success writing a series of popularized books on great feuds. Neither of these two are considered to be scholars in the field. Third, what does anything in that web page have to do with your mistaken claim that Leibniz invented the calculus before Newton? Fourth, just for your own edification, I never said that Newton was an angel in his personal dealings with others. His character in that regard was never mentioned as an issue. I myself have been very critical of Newton in regard to a number of matters, but when I criticize someone I base it on fact, not unsubstantiated assertions as you have done. Ffith, learn how to use your university library to do scholarly research instead of scouring the internet to find someone who might lend credence to your ignorant assertions.

[stephen_speicher]

Yeah, no kidding. When I posted my wish of revenge on Cannonball's head last night, I hoped it was going to come in the form of Mr. Speicher!

I once met a guy, 6 foot eight and 300 lbs of mostly muscle, with a face that could scare an elephant. He happened to share my love for fast and beautiful cars, so we had a long and very enjoyable conversation. All the time that we spoke I wondered just what he did for a living. At the end of our talk he gave me his card; his first name, a phone number, and the words ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT. I believed him!

If anyone on this forum needed an "attitude adjustement," it was CannonBall. I no longer have the card that the man gave me, so I did the next best thing.

[Godless Capitalist]

I have a lot to learn and I'm arrogant.

No kidding!

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

(attributed to both Twain and Lincoln)

[Thales]

Yes, among those knowledgeable in the field Newton is generally considered among the top three mathematicians in history along with Archimedes and Gauss, if not the first.

Three heroes.

Don't forget Euler! The most prolific mathematician of all time, and the mathematician most influential on modern day mathematical notation.

I appreciate your level of knowledge and the completeness of your responses to Cannon. As usual, I really enjoy your posts!

[stephen_speicher]

Three heroes.

Don't forget Euler!

As great as Euler was, I would still put him fourth, behind the other three. I think most historians of mathematics would agree. But, when it comes to evaluating greatness on this high of a level, there is plenty of room for disagreement.

The most prolific mathematician of all time, and the mathematician most influential on modern day mathematical notation.

That is probably true about notation, and if you include books it is probably true about most prolific too. But if you only consider published papers, Paul Erdos has Euler beat.

I appreciate your level of knowledge and the completeness of your responses to Cannon. As usual, I really enjoy your posts!

Thank you.

What is so incredibly ironic about all this is that I myself am quite critical of Newton in a number of ways. But my criticism is based on facts, not feelings, and I also recognize the facts that make Newton the great man that he was.

[oaktree]

Folks, this thread has been an excellent demonstation of what modern education is doing to our kids. I will present the proof in the words of the victim himself.

Newton was a hack.

The "Newton was a hack" was a little harsh, but he certainly gets too much credit.

one might want to punch Newton in the face. ... ... I respect Newton, alright, I was wrong in calling him a hack, but he is getting credit where it is not due. He was a genius but not the genius Einstein was.

Yes, what [Newton] did was revolutionary, but not as much so as Einstein's findings.

I do not literally mean Newton to be a hack, he gets more credit than he deserves.

[CannonBall]

I'm sorry I'm not allowed to state hyperboles; apparently one has to earn that right on this forum. I’ll take ignorance on this, rational ignorance. At this time it is not worth my time or effort to research this subject enough to refute what’s been said in regard to my claims that Newton was a hack. I did discuss this with my professor who had made the claims about Newton “stealing” calc and he seems to be respectfully critical of Newton. I was out of line in calling him a hack, and put on the defensive I irrationally attempted to back up my claim without addressing the facts that were presented. Once I realized I couldn’t do that without spending a whole lot of time I tried to lazily search the internets (sic) for a rebuttal. I’ve had my ass handed to me in every sense of the expression, however, if I ever get the time or motivation to further pursue this topic, I’d like to form a rational response to why Einstein is a “greater genius” than Newton, until I have the time (I just took the FE…etc…etc…) I have to concede that I’m ignorant on the subject. Thank you for putting me in my place. Gross exaggerations are accepted in most of the forums I frequent and not taken literally, what I said was out of line in this forum. My apologies. Don’t blame the school system, blame ME, I made a gross exaggeration and instead of saying that I was not serious or wrong I attempted to back it up, pride issues, like I said before, I have been duly put into my place. I needed that, thank you.

-Nate

[Free Capitalist]

There is nothing quite as obnoxious as an ignorant undergraduate or graduate student whom you let loose on the world too early, equipped with the "power" of the little that he has learned.

This one is a keeper!

The kind of thing you pulled off here, Nate, is really upsetting. The only previous time that I've seen the kind of disrespect toward Stephen Speicher, that you've shown here, was in the HPO forum on newsgroups. Now those guys were hacks!

I'm glad you apologized (and I wish you apologized to Stephen personally) because even I felt insulted by your irascability, though I took no part of the discussion. After finishing just the second page of this thread I had a violent urge to unleash a very biting post in your direction.

[Thales]

My apologies. Don’t blame the school system, blame ME, I made a gross exaggeration and instead of saying that I was not serious or wrong I attempted to back it up, pride issues, like I said before, I have been duly put into my place. I needed that, thank you.

That's important, taking responsibility. We all make mistakes. The important thing is to learn from your mistakes, improve and move on.

[Jay P]

Near the start of this topic, two people (OldGrayBob, Thoyd Loki) briefly mentioned that they thought Nikola Tesla was a greater genius than either Einstein or Newton. Since I found no further discussion of this point, I'd like to know: why do you think he was the greater genius?

[Thoyd Loki]

Near the start of this topic, two people (OldGrayBob, Thoyd Loki) briefly mentioned that they thought Nikola Tesla was a greater genius than either Einstein or Newton.  Since I found no further discussion of this point, I'd like to know: why do you think he was the greater genius?

Without enumerating his accomplishments. I would say that Tesla was more the complete integration of theory and practice. Meaning I like the full integration of the abstract to the concrete that an inventor represents. This is not to detract from the other two in any way. Actually I would define this more as a personal choice to favor Tesla over the other two. But, really, when we get this high up, how do you really choose the "bigger" genius?

[White Eurocentric Male]

Seems everybody is arguing about a question that's not clearly stated. The greatest genius according to what? What do you compare? Accomplishment, beauty - elegance of theories or solutions, number of fields they where active in...?