bloodhound Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 That doesn't change either of the facts that it was replicated' date=' and this comparison is rather silly. Most excellent![/quote'] replicated by libniz AFTER newton first invented it... many thousands of students replicate results by newton , gauss, einstain every day. that doesnt mean they are better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 replicated by libniz AFTER newton first invented it... many thousands of students replicate results by newton , gauss, einstain every day. that doesnt mean they are better After, but independently. Knowing the result, it can become trivial to replicate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 yes but newton did it first and did it BETTER... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 yes but newton did it first and did it BETTER... I know that Newton did it first, but the fact that it was independently replicated at a similar point in time remains the case; indeed, it seems likely that the work would have been replicated anyway; Newton was working in a popular area, and working from a base of knowledge established by Fermat and the like. There is argument over whether he did it better. Of course, we wouldn't be having this discussion if Newton had actually published his results when he acquired them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Of course, we wouldn't be having this discussion if Newton had actually published his results when he acquired them. The rush to publish did not carry the imperative it does today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 at a similar point in time you say!! theres more than 10 years in difference....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 at a similar point in time you say!! theres more than 10 years in difference....... No there isn't. 10 years at most; there's a mere gap of 6 years between Newton finishing and Leibniz beginning. But that's beside the point; 10 years is utterly inconsequential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 many things can be accomplished in ten years. fermats last theorem was proved in ten years. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 many things can be accomplished in ten years. fermats last theorem was proved in ten years. etc. By what reckoning was Fermat's last theorem proven in ten years? Fermat wrote his little note in 1637! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 I meant when Andrew Wiles started working on it and finish it..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 I meant when Andrew Wiles started working on it and finish it..... Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's Last Theorem AFTER 350 years. Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's Last Theorem IN 7 years (or however long it was). Leibniz discovered Calculus 10 years AFTER Newton. Leibniz discovered Calculus IN 4 years. I can't believe you even started to consider that a valid argument, as Andrew Wiles was working with the additional mathematics of over 3 centuries; the amount of mathematics in a certain field in a decade is going to be much smaller. Furthermore, the structure of that point was similar to 'Nowadays, students can prove Calculus pretty quickly, yet Newton took years over it!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 huh? are u saying calculus was invented in a few years. the foundations of calculus was founded well before newton or leibniz were ever born, same can be said to any old theorem. edit:and the calculus that we now know of took several centuries to develop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertlee Posted January 3, 2005 Author Share Posted January 3, 2005 Did Einstein make any comment of Isaac Newton??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 To the Master's honor all must turn, each in its track, without a sound, forever tracing Newton's ground. Newton, forgive me. Nature to him was an open book, whose letters he could read without effort. "The cosmic religious experience is the strongest and noblest driving force behind scientific research. No one who does not appreciate the terrific exertions and above all, the devotion without which pioneer creations in scientific thought cannot come into being, can judge the strength of the feeling out of which alone such work, turned away as it is from immediate practical life, can grow. What a deep faith in the rationality of the world and its structure and what a longing to understand even the smallest glimpses of the reason revealed in the world there must have been in Kepler and Newton ..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 I mean Newtons work is just unimaginable... to claim that two masses will have a force between them because they just do is mindboggling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AL Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 IIRC, both Newton and Leibniz used the concept of an infinitesimal to derive the derivative. The modern definition of limit didn't come around until Cauchy ~150 years later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verusamore Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 from what i understand from reading hawkings the universe in a nutshell, einstein would be nowhere without equations and theories from other great physicists. And where would Hawking be without Black Holes , certainly not incorrect . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 rom what i understand from reading hawkings the universe in a nutshell, einstein would be nowhere without equations and theories from other great physicists. Well that is what he [Einstein] said Im standing on the sholders of giants...... its his work on the photo electric effect we should remember Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 Well that is what he [Einstein] said Im standing on the sholders of giants...... That was Newton, not Einstein. "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 Damn, but the point remains the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now