- #1
- 153
- 3
Who would you choose as the superior physicist ,Einstein or Newton?(judging from their intellect and accomplishments),Russian physicist Lev Landau had a list ,in which newton was first .Is there an intellect superior to either of them?
Who would you choose as the superior physicist ,Einstein or Newton?(judging from their intellect and accomplishments),Russian physicist Lev Landau had a list ,in which newton was first .Is there an intellect superior to either of them?
Thanks for the recommendation. Another book that makes the same point is The Clockwork Universe, by Edward Dolnick. Newton's 'Universal Gravitation' was a more shocking idea in it's day than Relativity was in Einstein's.Here's one data point: Newton and Galileo overthrew a theory that had been dominant for about two millennia. Einstein overthrew a theory that had been dominant for about two centuries.
Here's another consideration: I think the ideas that motion is relative, objects in motion tend to stay in motion, and the earth is moving, are far more shocking to human intuition than Einstein's total reworking of the notions of space and time. The only reason we're not shocked by the former notions as much is because we've been brought up on them. Read the book "The Sleepwalkers" by Arthur Koestler to find out just how mind-blowing they were at the time, and what incredible ingenuity it took to come up with them.
Why don't you post a question on the relativity subforum?I never got past his concept of simultaneity.
That clocks in motion slow down I can accept
but that actual time progresses at a variable rate I cannot.
So to me it's still an unsolved riddle. In my simple mind , time should be the 'universal frame of reference' he sought
All observers have so far got the same answer for speed of light
Has anybody measured it on the moon yet, or out where Pioneer spacecraft is?
Not challenging relativity
just i'd sure like to find a layman's explanation as to why time has to vary instead of c .. That'd be one less riddle on my bucket list.
Surely there's a few out there ?
Now thats what I am talking about! ARCHIE ROCKS!!!I end up with Archimedes instead as an all-time winner.
Time is what a clock shows.It'd be interesting to follow Einstein's thought processes as he figured all this out.
I never got past his concept of simultaneity.
That clocks in motion slow down I can accept
but that actual time progresses at a variable rate I cannot.
Actually as far as I know universal frame of reference was supposed to be ether but that got disprovedSo to me it's still an unsolved riddle. In my simple mind , time should be the 'universal frame of reference' he sought
Admittedly they haven't but if it gave a different value then it would only prove that relativity works on only earth rather than those places; which gives Earth a some kind of mystical aura of greatness,( Laws here are special, Yippee!)All observers have so far got the same answer for speed of light
Has anybody measured it on the moon yet, or out where Pioneer spacecraft is?
It doesn't have to but it does all the same. Einstein just explained how.just i'd sure like to find a layman's explanation as to why time has to vary instead of c .. That'd be one less riddle on my bucket list.
Surely there's a few out there ?
She was a professor of clinical psychology at the Yale Medical School and affiliated with Yale's Institute of Human Relations. Earlier she worked at Stanford with Stanford-Binet creator Lewis Terman in issues related to IQ. She is also known for her historiometric study (1926) of IQ estimates of three hundred prominent figures who lived prior to IQ testing, a work which was one of the earliest attempts to apply social scientific methods to the study of genius and greatness.
When comparing two people like this you need to think about the possibilities that were possible at their respective times. It's so difficult to answer questions like this and usually I just avoid them but although my favorite person in history is Albert Einstein, I have to say that Newtons contributions were stronger than Einsteins.
Both were great men, both accomplished great feats and I hate comparing the two, it's like we're trying to take something away from one of them, or credit one or the other. It's like asking who was better Mike Tyson or Muhammad Ali. It just doesn't feel right.
The big discovery that came out when they re-examined all the reams of writing he left is that the greater part of it was religious writings. And not about ethics, but about things like Bible codes, obscure messages he saw woven into the text. Also, in Opticks there is included a long passage of completely crazy stream of consciousness about light. He dropped all pretense of rigor and let loose with a new age sounding jumble of exited dreaming about light.As a historical personage, Newton was an arrogant fundamentalist that spent a great deal of his time doing pseudo-science. But what's amazing is the amount he accomplished despite spending so much of his time doing the wrong thing. What if he hadn't? What would he have accomplished then? I can't even conceive of it. Huge brain (metaphorically speaking)
The big discovery that came out when they re-examined all the reams of writing he left is that the greater part of it was religious writings. And not about ethics, but about things like Bible codes, obscure messages he saw woven into the text. Also, in Opticks there is included a long passage of completely crazy stream of consciousness about light. He dropped all pretense of rigor and let loose with a new age sounding jumble of exited dreaming about light.
Learning these things, and let's not forget his extensive work in alchemy, I get a sense of Newton as a thorough lunatic who, unlike most lunatics, discovered he could hold himself together when needed by a strict adherence to rigor and logic.
Now thats what I am talking about! ARCHIE ROCKS!!!