Newton vs Einstein: Proving Newton is the Greatest Physics Person

  • Thread starter Thread starter kasemodz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Einstein Newton
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a paper comparing Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, specifically focusing on the assertion that Newton is the greatest physicist. The original poster expresses a belief that Einstein's work was derivative of Newton's findings, prompting a debate about the validity of this perspective.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the historical context of both physicists' contributions, questioning the original poster's interpretation of Einstein's work. Some suggest a more nuanced comparison rather than a definitive judgment of superiority.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with various participants providing differing viewpoints on the merits of both scientists. Some offer guidance on reframing the paper's topic to focus on their respective contributions rather than a direct comparison of greatness.

Contextual Notes

There are indications that the original poster may be constrained by the assignment's requirements, which could be influencing their approach to the topic. Some participants express concern about the appropriateness of the assignment itself.

  • #31
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. :wink: 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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
arildno said:
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.
 
  • #33
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)
 
  • #34
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.
 
  • #35
kasemodz said:
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.
 
  • #36
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.
 
  • #37
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. :smile:
 
  • #38
I got one message for all you Newton fans out there:HE WAS AN ALCHEMIST ! *inserts sadistical loughter*...

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

Daniel.
 
  • #39
dextercioby said:
I got one message for all you Newton fans out there:HE 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*
 
  • #40
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.
 
  • #41
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.
 
  • #42
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.
 
  • #43
"Newton is the greatest physics person alive. (emphasis mine)

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

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
641
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K