Einstein or Newton

[Ravager]

Originally Posted by Baler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why are people so hung up on the word faith being attached to religion.

Example: a trust circle. a person stands in the middle and has to trust the people around them that they will catch them when they lean over to fall.
The person in the middle has faith that the people around them will catch them when they lean over to fall.

Trust in something. You trust that science is true so you can explain things. You have faith in science. Science is a faith for people.

edit: another example: I have faith that my jalopy will make it over this next hill.

Now we're getting into the realm of arguing by definition, which is entirely pointless and fruitless.

[bdastomper58]

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Now we're getting into the realm of arguing by definition, which is entirely pointless and fruitless.

no. Einstein here still doesnt understand the idea of a scientific theory.

why are you being so polite to a complete dumbass

[AzzarTheGod]

Why couldn't Newton have been agnostic and saved us precious minutes of our lives reading this neat meta discussion.

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Originally Posted by bdastomper58 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

please learn what a scientific theory is

I know what that is, thanks. What I wrote was based on a different definition and meaning. Not a literal. For instance, Einstein's theory of relativity, as oppose to the Big Bang theory. You'll find those two examples fit both definitions in what I said despite, one being an actual "scientific theory", and the other not.

Please learn what a "Rhetorical aim", and "angel of vision" is.

[maskedmelon]

What if we add George Washington Carver and Leonardo DaVinci to the discussion?

I am a fan of peanuts butter.

Nothing cries genius like defiling graves beneath the moon. How many peasants might we suppose were drowned, burned or otherwise slain for DV's closet full of cadavers?

[Chaboo_Cleric]

Kinda disgusting to add either one of those people to this discussion. da Vinci wasn't at all impressive. First, he was a pedophile. Second, he never could finish any of his work. You can either accredit the fact he was a perfectionist or just a loon. Third, da Vinci was a hateful man and jealous of others , particularly Michaelangelo. I don't dismiss Da Vinci as a genius , but of the caliber of Newton and Einstein, is just gross.

[entruil]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Carver

'He was as concerned with his students' character development as he was with their intellectual development. He compiled a list of eight cardinal virtues for his students to strive toward:
A monument to Carver at the Missouri Botanical Garden in St. Louis

Be clean both inside and out.
Neither look up to the rich nor down on the poor.
Lose, if need be, without squealing.
Win without bragging.
Always be considerate of women, children, and older people.
Be too brave to lie.
Be too generous to cheat.
Take your share of the world and let others take theirs.
'

didn't know very much about this guy pretty cool.

[Toehammer]

confirmed young doctor here, PhD in physics, tenure-track assistant prof (endangered species nowadays)... some of my thoughts:

Newton > Einstein... and pretty much any sane physicist would agree. If you want an actual semi-respected ranking of great physicists, by a great physicist, check out Landau's List (or Landau's genius scale).

Newton however on the humanity side of things was quite a wanker. One of the funniest misunderstandings in the history of science was that Newton's letter to Hooke about "standing on the shoulders of giants" is that Newton was paying homage to Hooke's contributions. Truth be told, Newton was mocking Hooke's physical appearance as Hooke was bent over/crooked, supposedly due to too much time spent on a lathe... who really knows. Newton was saying he stood on the shoulders of Descartes/Galileo/Kepler, can't remember the others. He was essentially calling Hooke a mental midget and making fun of his appearance at the same time. Newton and Hooke had an odd relationship, especially because Newton was nipping at Hooke's heels. Hooke had postulated about gravity following an inverse square law but was focused on proving it experimentally, whereas Newton use Kepler's/Brahe's data/analysis that was already done to confirm the inverse square law. Newton was an analytical powerhouse. Hooke acknowledged Newton's greatness, and Newton was probably hesitant to acknowledge/respect Hooke's because he was more competitive. Lots is also up for debate, as is always in history. To be honest, Hooke's Micrographia >> Newton's Principia in terms of reading value and excitement, despite their total work where Newton > Hooke obviously. I think Hooke is one of the most tragic figures in science... so much is not credited to him. Newton's rings were actually discovered and conceptually explained by Hooke, for example... check out Micrographia. Newton was just badass at beating a topic to analytical death.

The founders of science cannot be given too little credit. I would actually rank Galileo and Kepler right next to Einstein. Galileo's scientific method/detail was groundbreaking and ushered in modern science, and Kepler's insight/reasoning was mindblowing... do some reading on Kepler's thoughts on snowflakes and sphere packing. Totally rad stuff.

Einstein's 1905 might have been the most productive (short period) year in the history of science though. Very impressive.

I always thought it should go like this:
1) Newton
2) Maxwell
3) Faraday
4) Einstein

I don't really know where to put Galileo/Kepler in there. Faraday never gets enough credit... I think he might have been the most creative/intuitive/genius scientist in history. However, nobody can match the impact of Newton.

I was sad to see this thread devolve into religion/science garbage. It is always bizarre to me to see two things that can have such a beautiful effect on people's lives be pit against each other, when to be honest, they are by definition mutually exclusive. Two of the greatest achievements of man, science and religion, have both helped immensely to move humanity away from troglodytic warring nomadic tribes into organized, principled nations. I don't subscribe to a religion, but there is nothing more obnoxious than an evangelical atheist.

If you want a really good read on science, read "Science: a History" by John Gribbin. It is the only history book I couldn't put down.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Toehammer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I was sad to see this thread devolve into religion/science garbage. It is always bizarre to me to see two things that can have such a beautiful effect on people's lives be pit against each other, when to be honest, they are by definition mutually exclusive. Two of the greatest achievements of man, science and religion, have both helped immensely to move humanity away from troglodytic warring nomadic tribes into organized, principled nations. I don't subscribe to a religion, but there is nothing more obnoxious than an evangelical atheist.

Good post, inclined to agree on Faraday needs more credit if for no other reason than the great boon that electrolysis is to humanity ^^

[Toehammer]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Good post, inclined to agree on Faraday needs more credit if for no other reason than the great boon that electrolysis is to humanity ^^

Every time I come up with a new idea in my own research (nanoparticle self-assembly/electrical charging/synthesis) I have to make sure Faraday didn't do it first. Faraday's conceptualization of "lines of force" (fields) essentially postulated non-infinite propagation velocities, i.e. no "action at a distance". This might be the true foundation of all modern physics. It is no coincidence that Einstein had pictures of 3 physicists on his wall to draw inspiration from: Newton, Maxwell, and Faraday.

Maxwell was so impressive. Read Freeman Dyson's article "Why is Maxwell's Theory so hard to Understand?" http://www.clerkmaxwellfoundation.or...manArticle.pdf Maxwell held Faraday in the highest regard as well. Dyson's article points out something very important: that scientists should blow their own trumpets, and as he says: "If Maxwell had had an ego like Galileo or Newton, he would have made sure that his work was not ignored. Maxwell was as great a scientist as Newton and a far more agreeable character..." Read the article; it explains eloquently how fields and the quantum mechanical wave function are just as difficult to understand because we can't actually measure them directly. I honestly believe if Faraday was around during the development of quantum mechanics he would have come up with a better formulation for the wave function than we have now, just like he did with fields, which is what made Maxwell's work possible. yeah... not to mention that Faraday had unquantifiable influence on modern industry...

post too long, abort!