i would say darwin. newton had a great idea at that time. But our model of gravity is way way different from that newton developed. So for today his influence is smaller than darwins
i would say darwin. newton had a great idea at that time. But our model of gravity is way way different from that newton developed. So for today his influence is smaller than darwins
yurop wrote:
i would say darwin. newton had a great idea at that time. But our model of gravity is way way different from that newton developed. So for today his influence is smaller than darwins
No, Newton's model of physics still works today for 99.99999% of PRACTICAL applications (i.e. everything but GPS)
yurop wrote:
i would say darwin. newton had a great idea at that time. But our model of gravity is way way different from that newton developed. So for today his influence is smaller than darwins
Newton had many 'ideas' - and a few of them are known as laws of nature.
Moreover, our understanding of gravity has been been refined since Newton, not replaced.
I think its safe to say that either ones accomplishments would have been accomplished by other people eventually but that said, i think it takes a more intuitive mind to create calculus than to hypothesize the theory of evolution. The theory is actually quite simple and easy to understand, it just took some cleverness and some observations to arrive at the conclusion. Calculus is not simple though, many people are not even capable of passing an intro course
Newton studied the Bible along with the Kabala and Jewish occult teachings and these influenced his “science.†He was obsessed with Solomon’s temple a structure that forms the basis for much Freemasonic and Luciferian symbolism. The term “gravity†actually means “heavy or having weight".
Gravity is literally the concept that holds the planetary spherical model of the world together. Without that concept, spinning balls tend to throw things from their surfaces rather than attracting them to it. Gravity is a core concept necessary for the globular earth theory and the globular earth theory.
The earth is flat and gravity does not exist. Anything lighter than air, floats but I digress.
To answer the question, Tesla was our greatest scientist and inventor.
subfive wrote:
They were both awesome thinkers. Deducing that the distance between objects has much to do with gravity seems like the more difficult line of reasoning. There are more observations available in figuring out evolution. So I think Newton's feat is a bit better.
But then Newton was horribly misguided about the bible. He could not see what was behind it. Amazing for someone of his thinking ability!
Well, Newton died in 1727. That was still in the mostly pre-critical days of biblical studies. This was before Hume, Kant, and the great German biblical scholars. Newton actually denied the trinity which was quite radical at that time, but he certainly had some odd views on prophecy and chronology. He also had some odd views on alchemy too. If he could've lived another century as a scientist, he probably would've discarded much of that over time. Can't fault him too much for growing up in those times and in that context. Have to remember that few were atheists because there was no alternative explanation for creation. The critically minded tended towards Deism (God as the great watchmaker who started it all but didn't intervene) until Darwin offered an alternative theory.
Fwiw, both Newton and Darwin are buried in Westminster Abbey in London.
newton jr. wrote:
yurop wrote:i would say darwin. newton had a great idea at that time. But our model of gravity is way way different from that newton developed. So for today his influence is smaller than darwins
Newton had many 'ideas' - and a few of them are known as laws of nature.
Moreover, our understanding of gravity has been been refined since Newton, not replaced.
thats just wrong. gravity today is the result of curved space. that has nothing to do with newtons idea at all.
yurop wrote:
newton jr. wrote:Newton had many 'ideas' - and a few of them are known as laws of nature.
Moreover, our understanding of gravity has been been refined since Newton, not replaced.
thats just wrong. gravity today is the result of curved space. that has nothing to do with newtons idea at all.
Relativity doesn't refute Newton's ideas any more than the discovery of genetics and DNA refute Charles Darwin's.
leaning tower of pizza wrote:
I think its safe to say that either ones accomplishments would have been accomplished by other people eventually but that said, i think it takes a more intuitive mind to create calculus than to hypothesize the theory of evolution. The theory is actually quite simple and easy to understand, it just took some cleverness and some observations to arrive at the conclusion. Calculus is not simple though, many people are not even capable of passing an intro course
It doesn't take a very intuitive mind to copy the work of Gottfried Leibniz :) Ok I don't think Newton really stole the idea from Leibniz. But if you look through history, you will find a lot of reinvention of ideas. A lot of times a problem comes into existence or technology advances enough to enable something (things like the telephone).
And frankly none of us can really judge these ideas. They are so pervasive that we can judge how shocking they were at the time. Heck most people today still struggle with evolution. Ask a dozen people if we are descended from monkeys and you will find numerous people that say yes.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Darwin wasn't as clever as John Harrison who invented the watch that allowed him and his peers to sail around the world visiting islands and observing birds and tortoises.
Until Harrison, ships could only fix latitude, not longitude. Tremendous invention that changed history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_HarrisonNewton and Leibniz invented calculus without the benefit of shorthand which adds to its impressiveness. But it didn't fix longitude.
Harrison built a better clock, he did invent the clock. It took him many years to build one to solve the longitude problem. However, he did solve a very difficult problem, but surely not on par with Newton or Darwin.
I was a navigator decades ago and used celestial navigation techniques that depend on the accurate measurement of longitude.
How is this even a question? Newton in a landslide.
Newton, Einstein, Archimedes and perhaps a few more are all light years ahead of Darwin.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Einstein wasn't a great scientist either.
There is a black hole inside your skull.
For me Newton is more of a steeplechaser and Darwin is a marathoner.
subfive wrote:
I wrote:John Harrison who invented the watch that allowed him and his peers to sail around the worldHarrison built a better clock, he did invent the clock. It took him many years to build one to solve the longitude problem. However, he did solve a very difficult problem, but surely not on par with Newton or Darwin.
Both Newton and Darwin presented straightforward and simple solutions to relatively modern problems raised only by the cumulative advance of science before their time. Likewise Einstein would have remained a patent clerk if there were no dilemma in physics from the study of light. And if he had never lived, someone else would have thought up relativity instead.
Harrison may have been aided by advanced watchmaking, but at least he solved a problem that had already been framed for centuries and stymied the best minds in history. That makes him greater. And the result of his work, too, is greater. Though he's unsung, and it doesn't make for glorious science lectures, just about everything "modern" in the world depends on reliable shipping.
Darwin had to rush publishing of his book because other scientists were on the same path. He wasn't very special or clever. Newton on the other hand advanced science by at least a century.
subfive wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:Darwin wasn't as clever as John Harrison who invented the watch that allowed him and his peers to sail around the world visiting islands and observing birds and tortoises.
Until Harrison, ships could only fix latitude, not longitude. Tremendous invention that changed history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_HarrisonNewton and Leibniz invented calculus without the benefit of shorthand which adds to its impressiveness. But it didn't fix longitude.
Harrison built a better clock, he did invent the clock. It took him many years to build one to solve the longitude problem. However, he did solve a very difficult problem, but surely not on par with Newton or Darwin.
I was a navigator decades ago and used celestial navigation techniques that depend on the accurate measurement of longitude.
Harrison falls in the "engineer" category. Newton and Darwin fit better in the scientist/philosopher category. The later are usually more impressive...generally.
Newton's theory of gravity is consistent with general relativity. It a special case. General relativity is a generalization. Study Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's Gravitation.
Fcking s.uck it Darwin! We didn't evolve from apes, we evolved into apes!
Newton elucidated the mechanisms behind our own models of reality allowing us to mathematically manipulate/understand our own knowledge/perception. He picked up the great work of Descartes and advanced us into the 20th century all from back in the 17th century. Comparing Newton to Darwin is ridiculous. The theory of evolution is very flawed, but it is politically convenient and as such most of the low-minded masses take it as gospel. The fossil record does not adequately demonstrate our evolution from primates nor does our current understanding of genetics imply anything less than a minuscule chance of said evolution. Even a cursory statistical analysis of genetic mechanisms should make it pretty clear that some degree of intelligent design was likely involved in the origin of human beings. Newton would no doubt have supported this view, as well as Einstein so make of it what you will.
Elucidation wrote:
Newton elucidated the mechanisms behind our own models of reality allowing us to mathematically manipulate/understand our own knowledge/perception. He picked up the great work of Descartes and advanced us into the 20th century all from back in the 17th century. Comparing Newton to Darwin is ridiculous. The theory of evolution is very flawed, but it is politically convenient and as such most of the low-minded masses take it as gospel. The fossil record does not adequately demonstrate our evolution from primates nor does our current understanding of genetics imply anything less than a minuscule chance of said evolution. Even a cursory statistical analysis of genetic mechanisms should make it pretty clear that some degree of intelligent design was likely involved in the origin of human beings. Newton would no doubt have supported this view, as well as Einstein so make of it what you will.
...I'm in agreement till your 'evolution is flawed....' argument.
How is evolutionary theory politically convenient? I don't see any politics in the theory at all.
We didn't evolve 'from' primates. Humans evolved to be humans. Chimps evolved to be chimps. What we share with other primates is a common ancestor earlier than a common ancestor with say a bear, crocodile or worm.
Fossil records are part of a mountain of evidence in support of evolution. Fossil records are not complete for an accurate trace of the human lineage, but that does not negate the theory.
Our current understanding of genetics adds more credence to the theory of evolution than almost any other type of evidence, including fossil records (e.g. inherent errors in DNA replication; genetic comparisons of eukaryotes vs. prokaryotes; genetic similarity among primates vs. other mammals, etc., etc., etc.)
What statistical analysis of genetics are you referring to exactly that refute evolution?
Intelligent design vis-a-vis abiogenesis (i.e. the origin of life) is certainly compatible with evolutionary theory.