Newton vs Einstein: Proving Newton is the Greatest Physics Person

[kasemodz]

Hi, I need some help on a paper I'm writing about Newton versus Einstein. Basically I have to prove that Newton is the greatest physics person alive. I researched a lot online and found that Einstein basically copied Newton's findings and added the fourth dimension to make it look it was his finding. Does anyone else have other information supported by links if possible? Plz help. thx.

 

[StatusX]

I'll tell you this much: that's ridiculous, find a new topic.

 

[whozum]

That is really far off from what really happened, though I wouldn't find a new topic unless that was really your point of view on it.

 

[arildno]

If you absolutely want to prove that Newton was better at something than Einstein, then you should rather try to prove that Newton was a better MATHEMATICIAN than Einstein.

I would, however, urge you to follow StatusX's recommendation.

 

[Grogs]

Kasemodz:

I would have to *very strongly* disagree with your findings. My understanding is thus: From the time Newton published his theories, Newton was considered almost a god-like figure. His rules seemed to govern the mechanics in the Universe.

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, newer, more sensitive measurements began to give results that disagreed with Newtonian mechanics. This presented quite a quandry, so the question became, why do Newton's theories work most of the time, but not in a few special cases?

This is where Albert Einstein stepped in. Rather than adding to Newton's theories, he came up with a whole new way of looking at things. General Relativity isn't an add-on to Newton's theory of gravity, it looks at it from a completely different perspective. The beauty of General Relativity is that, while it's more accurate than Newtonian theory, in most cases (such as here on Earth) the differences are so small that Newtonian physics still gives accurate results. In short, I don't find it fair (in any way) to say that Einstein copied Newton.

I should also add that a comparison of 'who's the better scientist' will eventually come down to subjective criteria (basically who you like best.) Newton's principles dominated the world in the 18th and 19th centuries and Einstein's have dominated much of the 20th centuries. Both were great scientists.

 

[dextercioby]

Of course,but Einstein still a whole lot more math than Newton.

There's no point in drawing comparisons.The French have a proverb:"Comparaison n'est pas raison".

Daniel.

 

[arildno]

Of course,but Einstein still a whole lot more math than Newton.

.

Aah, nice "guess the lacking verb"-problem, Daniel!
Here's my guess:
"Of course,but Einstein still DETESTED a whole lot more math than Newton"

Was I close?

 

[dextercioby]

Yep.A few light years away...Still possible to travel in time in Newton's theory.So,relatively speaking,you were close..

Daniel.

P.S.I'm not concentrating enough...

 

[kasemodz]

u guys rn't helping with me my paper. I need to support Newton.

 

[whozum]

You might want to change your paper topic to a comparison between the two, not as who is better, but who did what.

Credit Newton for his work in calculus, and his contributions to classical mechanics. He practically laid a solid foundation for classical mechanics.

Credit einstein for his work in relativity and QM, his contributions to such fields practically laid a solid foundation for quantum mechanics.

(correct me if I'm wrong)

 

[cepheid]

Well you don't seem to be listening or getting it. As StatusX said, the topic is absurd, and your "interpretation" of what Einstein did based on browsing a few webpages is false. Both Newton and Einstein were legitimate physicists. Both were geniuses. And each made theoretical discoveries that revolutionized physics. Furthermore, each advanced physics as far as he possibly could given the experimental data and theoretical knowledge that was available to him in his day. So if you want to compare each on the basis of the *current* validity of the physical theories put forth by each, the comparison is not really valid. It's not fair to judge their achievements based on that alone, because the two men were separated by, what, 300 years of knowledge? Apples and oranges, my friend. Newton and Einstein were not contemporaries. Besides, special relativity shows that the laws of Newtonian mechanics must be modified, not totally scrapped. That's how scientific knowledge progresses.

As someone pointed out, you might be able to compare the two on the basis of their mathematical prowess, arguing that, given how innovative and productive Newton was, developing calculus singlehandedly in order to further his physical inquiry, coming up with the laws of motion, the theory of gravitation, his insights into colour and optics etc, what might he have been able to do if he had lived in Einstein's time? But that's speculative and hypothetical. Einstein was innovative and brilliantly productive too, especially in 1905 when he came out with three separate papers. Why do you think we're celebrating the 100th anniversary of his "miracle year" as we speak? I'd still recommend choosing a different (read: less silly and more factual) topic.

Edit: Whozum came out with a good suggestion while I was writing this: instead of this "who was a better physicist?" nonsense, just give a factual account of each man's discoveries and how they changed our understanding of the physical world.

 

[Spectre5]

As many have mentioned, there is no way you even could "prove" that either one was better/smarter/greater/etc...

You won't find any good arguments as to why one or the other is better, they are very different and both made invaluable contributions to physics.

 

[Spectre5]

And if you reason for writing this paper is becuase your professor assigned it (and assigned the exact topc of "proving" that Netwon was greater), then you need to have a serious talk with your professor becuase that is a complete garbage assignment (if that is the case, then your teacher probably, for some reason, just loves Netwon and hates Einstein and is trying to make others feel the same way, which would make him/her rank among the lowest of professors)

 

[Mk]

If the case is you professor is a hard-core Newton fan, and quite the otherwise for Einstein, you should include a story about Newton's great charachter and kindness, as well has his achievements and theories. I don't remember the story well, but back at Newton's time there were these two physicists, regarded has best in their field, with cutting edge work. He discovered a new light and color theory, radically different than their work, the orthodox belief. He waited until they died, and then presented the theory. He didn't want people to laugh at them and them to feel bad, and stuff like that, apparently.

Sir Isaac Newton was born, 25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727 by the Julian calendar in use in England at the time, or 4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727 by the current international Gregorian calendar. He was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, philosopher, and alchemist. Newton was the first to promulgate a set of natural laws that could govern both terrestrial motion and celestial motion. Newton is also credited with providing mathematical substantiation for Kepler's laws of planetary motion. He would expand these laws by arguing that orbits (such as those of comets) were not only elliptic, but could also be hyperbolic and parabolic. Newton is also notable for argueing that light is composed of particles. Later physicists instead favored a wave explanation of light to account for diffraction. Today's quantum mechanics recognizes a "wave-particle duality," particles are actually waves and particles; however today's quanta of light, photons bear very little remblance to Newton's "corpuscles." He was the first to realize that the spectrum of colors observed when white light passed through a prism was inherent in the white light and not added by the prism as Roger Bacon had claimed in the 13th century.

Newton also developed a law of cooling, describing the rate of cooling of objects when exposed to air; almost totally the binomial theorem; and the principles of angular and conservation of momentum. He studied the speed of sound in air, and made a theory of stellar origins.

 

[juvenal]

Einstein basically copied Newton's findings and added the fourth dimension to make it look it was his finding.

What the bleep do you know? (A reference to the unintentional comedy of this statement).

 

[primarygun]

Based on Newton's work and Einstein believed it was wrong when things' speed is approximately speed of light.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Basically I have to prove that Newton is the greatest physics person alive.

If this was for a science class and I was your teacher, then I would fail you just for picking that topic. It seems to show a complete misunderstanding of science and the scientific method. It was Newton himself that said:

"If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants."

No scientific breakthrough is the result of only one person and to compare individual scientists in that way is simply absurd. Try to think like a scientist and find something more objectively definable

 

[arildno]

It is actually easier to "prove" that Archimedes was the greatest physicist&mathematician who has ever lived, but that's just my view when I indulge myself in making silly and unjustifiable ranking lists.

 

[arildno]

"If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants."

That citation is usually made out to be a testament to Newton's humility, or at least, respect for those who had gone before him.

Actually, it is a snide comment aimed at Hooke (who Newton detested); Hooke was dwarfish in stature..

 

[primarygun]

OK. I amend more speech.
Newton has completed the area of motion below the speed of light.
Einstein helped him changed the concept when it is near speed of light.

 

[Joel]

That citation is usually made out to be a testament to Newton's humility, or at least, respect for those who had gone before him.

Actually, it is a snide comment aimed at Hooke (who Newton detested); Hooke was dwarfish in stature..

All these comments about Newtons humility is sarcasm, right? I've understood he was the prick of the century, especially to those advocating the wave-nature of light.

As for advice to the OP, I would listen very carefully to those with medals under their name.

 

[arildno]

All these comments about Newtons humility is sarcasm, right? I've understood he was the prick of the century, especially to those advocating the wave-nature of light.

Well, I have no knowledge concerning Newton&pricks (although he did get rather attached to some of his asssistants), but he certainly was a bully and did not hesitate in using ad hominem arguments (the bitter quarrel betwee Leibniz and Newton was born from Newton's totally unfair characterizations of Leibniz)

 

[Nylex]

If this was for a science class and I was your teacher, then I would fail you just for picking that topic. It seems to show a complete misunderstanding of science and the scientific method. It was Newton himself that said:

"If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants."

No scientific breakthrough is the result of only one person and to compare individual scientists in that way is simply absurd. Try to think like a scientist and find something more objectively definable

You forgot the obvious: Newton isn't alive!

 

[Joel]

Well, I have no knowledge concerning Newton&pricks (although he did get rather attached to some of his asssistants), but he certainly was a bully and did not hesitate in using ad hominem arguments (the bitter quarrel betwee Leibniz and Newton was born from Newton's totally unfair characterizations of Leibniz)

Yes, bullying, ad hominem arguments and hot tempered was what I meant with 'prick'. And I think he was also had a cuarrel with Hook because they couldn't agree on the character of light. But I'm working with a vague memory here.

 

[SpaceTiger]

You forgot the obvious: Newton isn't alive!

Haha, yeah, good point.

To the comments about the Newton quote, it wasn't at all meant to be a commentary about his character, it was just trying to make a point about how science works. My impression is that he really was a bit of a jerk.

 

[arildno]

Yes, bullying, ad hominem arguments and hot tempered was what I meant with 'prick'. And I think he was also had a cuarrel with Hook because they couldn't agree on the character of light. But I'm working with a vague memory here.

Aah, well, I agree my joke wasn't any good..
And yes, one of the contentious issues between Hooke and Newton was on the nature of light. But it went further than that.
If I remember correctly, for some reason Newton loathed Hooke, and tried in a sysematic manner to marginalize Hooke through ridicule and other unsavoury techniques.

In short, Newton was a bastard.

 

[arildno]

To the comments about the Newton quote, it wasn't at all meant to be a commentary about his character (I don't care about that, really), it was just trying to make a point about how science works. .

Sure, you made a good point, SpaceTiger.
I fully admit my latest posts have been rather off-topic, whereas yours wasn't.

 

[dextercioby]

So what,Einstein is dead for 50 years...Anyway,i hope the OP has finally realized the absurdity of the original task.

Daniel.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Sure, you made a good point, SpaceTiger.
I fully admit my latest posts have been rather off-topic, whereas yours wasn't.

Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as confrontational, I had a feeling that the quote was misinterpreted, but felt it made a strong point anyway. Elucidating the true origin of the quote was not inappropriate, IMO.

 

[arildno]

You didn't strike me as confrontational at all, SpaceTiger. No offense felt on my part.

 

[Joel]

No, it was a good joke (my sense of humour is what's lacking), aildno. I didn't know he was found of his assistants. I just thought I'd check if my memory was correct. And to check further, wasn't Hook (at least partly) self-educated, which drove Newton nuts when Hook became a member of the Royal Academy of Science?

 

[Joel]

Sure, you made a good point, SpaceTiger.
I fully admit my latest posts have been rather off-topic, whereas yours wasn't.

As has my. Good point, SpaceTager.

 

[arildno]

The state of the sciences was in a truly awful state at Newton's time; so, Newton himself was necessarily self-taught as well.
Possibly, Newton was proud of being a minor noble, whereas Hooke was a commoner (but I don't know if this was part of Newton's detestation and contempt for Hooke)

 

[Joel]

Ok. I remember reading that -something- in Hooks past didn't agree with Newton in John Gibbins, Shrödingers Kittens. But I'm not sure. I'll trust your memory more than my.

 

[jtbell]

I researched a lot online and found that Einstein basically copied Newton's findings and added the fourth dimension to make it look it was his finding.

Which Web sites say that? You need to be aware that on the subject of Einstein and relativity, there are a lot of crackpot Web sites out there. Remember, anybody can put up a Web site. Just because something is out there on the Web doesn't mean that it is likely to be true.

 

[arildno]

Well, I don't think Hooke was formally enrolled as a student at either Cambridge or Oxford (which Newton was), nor attained a formal degree (which Newton did), so in that sense, your point might well be valid.
However, my point was that at the time, a university "education" was an even less reliable indicator of proficiency than it is today. Thus, most of Newton's researches was done at his own initiative as a student, rather than being part of some official education program; in that respect, both Newton and Hooke were self-taught men.

 

[saltydog]

Ah, yes. I suspect the objective your teacher had in mind was achieved: by assigning the task, he succeeded in inviting vigorous discourse among the camps so that you (and me) might learn more about both men and their work in a way not easily accomplished otherwise.

 

[dextercioby]

I got one message for all you Newton fans out thereE WAS AN ALCHEMIST ! *inserts sadistical loughter*...

But he was Newton.He still means a lot for macroscopical physics and for all physics actually.

Daniel.

 

[arildno]

I got one message for all you Newton fans out thereE WAS AN ALCHEMIST ! *inserts sadistical loughter*...


Daniel.

Sorry, to disappoint you; he was the last SORCERER!
*snatches Daniel's sadistical laughter out of his open mouth, and increases it ten-fold*

 

[jdavel]

kasemodz,

If you're still out there, why not write your paper on how absurd your original topic was? You've already gotten a lot of help from people here, and I bet they'd keep giving it if you ask.

 

[Vanes63]

Research Paper

Overall, I think the most helpful comment has been that of SpaceTiger, that you should think of it in a more scientific way. Also, someone had posted previously, that you might just want to say what each did.

There is no valid way to compare two scientists, and that might be part of your thesis.

Each had different information available to him at the time and regardless of whether or not one or the other was a prick or a loner or whatever, they both did a lot for the foundations of science and mathematics.

Take Newtons accomplishments with Calculus and Einstein's with relativity theory. Realize that you might have to dig a lot to find substantial information to back up your points.

One question that comes to mind is, what's the rush? When is this DUE? I figure, within the week or so and that doesn't give you enough time to read a lot of information.

I'd reference books rather than webpages, go to the library and search for the Dictionary of Scientific Biography and start from there.

The University of St. Andrews also has some great biographical information about mathematicians (from the point of view of math, Newton did more... but Einstein couldn't have invented Calculus the way Newton did, because Newton came first).

Also, I realized (after a quick scan through the St. Andrews Einstein biography) that the American Institute of Physics has a few pages dedicated to Einstein. You might find something similar for Newton somewhere.

Good luck.

- Vanes.

 

[BobG]

I don't think a comparison between each's accomplishments and their impact on science today will get you what you want. You need to put each person's accomplishments in the context of the time they lived.

Relative to the amount of knowledge that existed in their own time, who pushed science the furthest. Versatility would come into play, as well. Considering Newton had to invent an entirely new branch of mathematics, I think you could make a case for him (but, an opposite case could also be made - considering the odds of two mathematicians inventing the same mathematics branch independently so close in time suggests that DesCartes was more important to the development of calculus than either Newton or Leibniz). In fact, most of the work you'll have to do for this will deal with tracking down what work by other people led to either Newton's or Einstein's ideas.

As to Newton's personality, he was more an insecure neurotic than a prick. Hooke was a prick. He seemed to overcompensate for his physical appearance by cruelly belittling anyone he perceived as an 'opponent'. His initial treatment of Newton really wasn't much different than his treatment of any new guy not firmly established in the British scientific community, although he did seem to develop a special love for blasting Newton. Newton's hatred of Hooke and waiting for Hooke's death to publish a lot of his work had more to do with Newton's inability to deal with any criticism of any kind, and, dang, wouldn't you know it - as soon as Newton found someone from a different country to feud with and discovered that feeling of acceptance that comes from having his British peers patriotically stand behind him, he wound up being as bad as Hooke ever was.

 

[HallsofIvy]

"Newton is the greatest physics person alive. (emphasis mine)

You are going to have a really hard time proving that!