Talk:Isaac Newton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Isaac Newton article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Featured article star Isaac Newton is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 13, 2005.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.


Contents

[edit] Vandalism!!

The page has been vandalized by Kevinazite, but due to the semi-protected status of the page I cannot revert it. Please revert it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.208.83.248 (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In the top right info box it mentions that "Daniel Waterhouse" was his college roommate. This is untrue; he's entirely a fictional character, so someone should remove it. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so I'm pretty sure I can't do it myself...malisas

[edit] Comment 1

Gina gao (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC) I don't think theres romance.Gina gao (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)The pronunciation should also include a variation for people who pronounce the word without the yohd sound after the n (e.g. many americans.) The alternate should be something like /nu:tən/.

While we are at it, we could add variations for voiced nasals, and whether the t is released or unreleased, but that's probably overkill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.74.38 (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


I like the revised intro that says Newton shares credit with Leibniz for creating calculus. The text I changed said that Newton invented it far before Leibniz, which is not true. Gregsinclair 15:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: Newton Stole the Calculus from Liebnitz after the Great German Mathematician presented the Calculus in Cambridge university. Liebniz issued proceeding against Newton after he published Liebniz work 4 years after the guy presented the work in Cambridge. At the trial in the UK Newton was the Judge and all the commette were his close frinds and found the Great German Scientist GUILTY !! eheheheheh Francesco Da Cosenza

There are problems in External links! Such as "Newton Research Project" link should be "http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/prism.php?id=1" , "PDF of Newton's Principia: 1687, 1713, and 1726 editions" do not exist(have moved).Mhims (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please cut the last sentence in the introduction regarding the Royal Society poll. It contains very little information. What is the value of a Royal Society poll, and further the value with such a limited comparison? Maybe if he was considered the most influential scientist of all time you could leave it... 2008/June/4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.115.186 (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who was Isaac Newton?

Isaac Newton (1642-1727) is considered to be one of the most influential scientists to have ever lived. Born into a Lincolnshire farming family, he was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge. Newton was appointed Master of the Royal Mint in 1696 and President of the Royal Society in 1703 - a position he held for 22 years until his death. In 1705, he was knighted by Queen Anne, the first scientist to be so honoured for his work. The theory behind Principia The Principia combined the ideas of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler into a single theory which explained the underlying universal laws of the cosmos in mathematical terms. Newton's laws united heaven and earth, effectively ending the separation of the natural and the supernatural. In 1684, Newton first published his ideas on universal gravitation in a nine-page paper entitled De moto corporum in gyrum. This work became the basis for Principia. The Philosophise is divided into three books. The first book begins with eight definitions and three axioms. These axioms, which became known as Newton's three laws of motion, are followed by propositions, theorems and problems. The second book covers the motion of bodies through resisting mediums, as well as the motions of fluids. The last book extends the three laws of motion into Newton's law of universal gravitation.

The purpose of this section should be clarified or else removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.254.165 (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gravity

Gravity was all of it the Work of Galileo Galilei Newton did NOTHING on the subject !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.66.41 (talk) 11:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Your an idiot. (80.42.157.120 (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] How do we know that Newton discovered it besides his word

I know there are Newton followers who claimed that Newton shared the calculus with them before Leibniz's discovery. Besides their word it there any proof? Who were these people? I have never seen any solid evidence that clears Newton's name beyond a shadow of a doubt that he did not steal the calculus from Leibniz and would like toknow if such evidence exists beyond his word and the word of some of this followers (who already were proven to be unreliable during the nasty dispute).

The more I learn about Newton, it seems that he might have stolen just about everything he is credited with. Does anyone have a list of his discoveries that are not shrouded in controversy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.240.87 (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous sources for his discoveries, including his surviving manuscripts, as well as formal and informal writings by his Scientific and literary contemporaries. The dispute with Leibniz is typical of early modern science and shouldn't be extrapolated to highlight Newton as some kind of aberrant con man. Much of his dispute with Leibniz was theological anyway.

Yes, his followerss in the Eighteenth century did eulogize him, but recent scholarship is much more authoritative, and still shows him to be amazingly inventive, or rather, as synthesizing (sometimes widely) disparate traditions within C17th natural philosophy.

See: Bertoloni Meli, D 'Equivalence and Priority: Newton versus Leibniz' (Cambridge 1995) Hall, A.R. 'Philosophers at war: The quarrel between Newton and Leibniz' (Cambridge 1980) Popkin, R.H. 'The Books of Nature and Scripture' (Dordrecht, 1994) 129.67.116.85 (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

Is signature (wich is used in article) real one? I found that same signature with google photo search, but found also in amazon other one. Is that signature really written ny Newton? 213.186.244.180 (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Signature is taken from [1], but there are two "Newtons" signature, wich one is correct? 213.186.244.180 (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Now it should be right one. QWerk.fi (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tides

In this article, there's nothing about his great achievement in laying the foundations of the theory of tides. I think there should be something about this, probably near the beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDA555 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Newton was a genius in the field of descriptive geometry and spent a lot of the "Principia" discussing the motion of the moon and of the earth and it's tides. He extended the concept of "universal gravitation" to include the sun and all the 6 planets that were known about at the time. He knew about the force of gravity and about inertia and centripetal force and speculated about magnetic forces and electrical forces, but not about their causes. His rule No.1 in philosophy was to accept only the simplest explanation of an event that was "both true and sufficient to explain the event"WFPMWFPM (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Aspergers syndrome"

Aspergers is very hype nowadays. 40 % of those who get the diagnose don't have the condition. I think you should therefore remove the speculations about him having Aspergers, because you provide absolutely no evidence to back up your claims and i think it's very dehumanizing for the memory of Newton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.162.164.144 (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

AS diagnoses are only increasing because medical awareness is increasing. It wasn't a well documented condition until 1994, therefore many people who ought to have been diagnosed were not. Newton was almost certainly an Asperger sufferer, so too Einstein and many other highly gifted people. It's not a slander on his intellectual gift to say he had AS, it is in fact a possible root of his genius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.23.221 (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but Newton did not have Aspergers syndrome. I friend of mine work as a psychiatrist. She claimed that doctors often say to patients with Aspergers that Einstein or some other brilliant scientist had the condition because it gives them a sense of hope, a sense of pride (many people with Aspergers are often depressed and sometimes even suicidal). If you can prevent them from committing suicide, it will save the doctors alot of paper work and help advance their careers. Genius, creativity and excentricity has absolutely no business associating with autism.

Autism is simply a disorder that makes it very hard, if not impossible, for a person with the condition to interact with other people. Since their is no link between high intelligence and autism, the overwhelming majority of people with Aspergers have average IQ.

Einstein and Newton have been cited as probable cases by Simon Baron-Cohen, a world-leading expert. Your comments about preventing suicides by making up the notion that these people had AS is simply untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.23.221 (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

His opinion about Newton and Einstein is only a theory, not a fact. There are many professor that don't agree with him. You have to understand why he is promoting these opinions.

" British psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen suggests that the evidence that Einstein had Asperger's traits can make it possible for those with the condition to excel and find their niche in life. He also goes on to state that autistic spectrum disorders makes those with the condition depressed and sometimes even suicidal. "If we can do something to make life easier for those with the condition then we should do so," states Baron-Cohen.

These comments may suggest that there is really so little that is good about autistic spectrum disorders that trying to find successful persons of great celebrity would prove a quick fix for those wishing to give hope, raising self-esteem of those on the spectrum. These facts present an argument for persons who take offense at the thought of eradicating autism to mitigate suffering. " Read the excellent article: http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:ET5GkGF_Pq0J:www.jonathans-stories.com/non-fiction/undiagnosing.html+Simon+Baron-Cohen+%22life+easier%22&hl=sv&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=se —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.162.164.144 (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improper grammar?

In the third paragraph of the introduction (section before table of contents) and possibly occurring in other places in the article, the sentence reads "In mathematics, Newton shares the credit with Gottfried Leibniz for the development of the calculus."; "the calculus" doesn't sound right to me. Shouldn't it be written "In mathematics, Newton shares the credit with Gottfried Leibniz for the development of calculus." Anyone who agrees with this and has privilege to do so, could they please change it.

--Fujimuji (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Calculus tells us: "Historically, it was sometimes referred to as "the calculus", but that usage is seldom seen today". So, it is supported - but whether it's something we want to perpetuate in our day is another question. I'd characterise it as an archaism, and dispense with the "the". -- JackofOz (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


Yeah, I read that article just after posting my message and went "ooohhhh", haha. Anyway, I agree that it is an archaism and should be deleted.

--Fujimuji (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that you cite this as improper grammar. Of course, the usage is incorrect for today, but it has nothing to do with grammar...--97.115.3.171 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British Slave Trade

Newton is listed in the category "British slave traders and slave holders", but this isn't clarified within the actual article text. Is this true, and if so, should it be mentioned in the article? Algabal (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hart, Royal Society, etc.

I've removed the phrase, added about two weeks ago, concerning Michael Hart's ranking of Newton. Hart is one person and is in no way comparable to the Royal Society, or its members, in expertise or accomplishments. Rankings such as his can be thought-provoking, lucrative, and even fun, but they don't carry much weight. - My apology if this point has received prior discussion in the past. Astrochemist (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Freemasonry

I think it is important to note that many of his indications to the Royal Society and other institutional positions were due to him being a Freemason. Quoting of his graduation and close friends who indicated him to his posts can be found by searching Google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.11.185.148 (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


I posted a question here regarding a statement in Michael White's book the Last Sorcerer [2] which some self-righteous censor has deleted. I was asking about the assertion that Newton had set the date of Jews returning to their homeland at 1948. This relates perhaps to Freemasonry, to British Israelism and the Christian Zionism of the Anglo Saxons in general and should not be cast aside. It poses questions about the Apocalyptic beliefs of the English ruling classes and also about the science (or pseudo science) of numerology.

Wool Bridge (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment: Further reading

Observation: The References, Further reading, and External links sections are way too long. A few key references should be sufficient. A dozen items in all of them combined is sufficient.

--Mcorazao (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

At one point the intro clearly identified Newton's greatest contribution, but for some reason doesn't any longer. He was the first to demonstrate that many natural phenomena can be described by precise mathematical laws. He established the basic methodology which physicists have used ever since: go out and measure something precisely; then write down the equations that describe its behavior; solve them; and then check the validity of your solution by comparing with the measurement. This business (in the final line of the intro) of comparing Newton and Einstein is rather tedious, and doesn't belong there. Most practicing physicists (of which I am one) don't regard this as a useful exercise: they lived in very different times. One often hears the opinion that Newton's combined contributions to theoretical and experimental physics and to mathematics exceed those of anyone who followed him. I suspect that most physicists would sign on to that; e.g. you can find that opinion stated in Abraham Pais' splendid biography of NIels Bohr. (Pais also wrote the standard technical biography of Einstein.) But that still doesn't get at the heart of the matter, and is somewhat beside the point. Which leads me to the following suggested replacement for the final sentence of the introduction:

"Newton's greatest contribution was his demonstration that many natural phenomena can be described precisely by mathematical laws.

He established the basic methodology that physicists have used ever since. This revolutionary discovery had a deep influence on modern culture (Feingold Reference): the political philosophy of Locke, the writings of Voltaire, and the Deism of the French and American Revolutions would be inconceivable without it."

Feingold Reference: ``The Newtonian Moment, Mordecai Feingold, New York Public Library/Oxford University Press (2004).
Ratengam —Preceding comment was added at 03:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know anything about the motivations for the deletion of that comment. I will say that the first sentence of the quote is perhaps a bit misleading (i.e. one should be careful about quoting authors whose opinions are not necessarily consistent with scholarly consensus). As phrased the sentence implies that Newton was the first one to suggest that the universe could be understood in terms of mathematics and this certainly is not true. Even the Romans (i.e. the Greek Romans) had begun to model physical phenomena mathematically, albeit it primitively. By the high middle ages precise models of lunar motion had been developed (Ibn al-Shatir) along with lots of other mathematical models for describing physical phenomena. And clearly Copernicus' model was highly mathematical in nature.
Newton can be seen as continuing this evolution of thought although, obviously, he pushed the frontier more than anyone ever had. The "revolution" in thought that he created was not the first such revolution created by scientific discovery but he discovered so much in such a short period of time that his revolution was more impressive than most (all?) others.
--Mcorazao (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, a more complete and accurate description would be

"Newton's greatest contribution was his demonstration that many natural phenomena can be described precisely through the methods of mathematical analysis, based on an economical set of laws. He established the basic methodology that physicists have used ever since. This revolutionary discovery had a deep influence on modern culture (Feingold Reference): the political philosophy of Locke, the writings of Voltaire, and the Deism of the French and American Revolutions were inconceivable without it."
Analysis in the modern sense didn't really exist before Newton and Leibniz. And prior attempts to describe orbital motion quantitatively only amounted to matching 'fitting functions' to the data. The 'revolution' was a real one because it combined for the first time i) an appreciation of the importance of experiment (which developed gradually over the preceding centuries, but was relatively lacking in Greek science) with ii) a development of mathematical methods to the minimal level needed to describe the simplest of natural phenomena. As always in science, it was the result of a collective effort: Newton may not have developed the calculus if he hadn't been taught by Barrow, and there is good evidence that Hooke explained to him the role of inertia in circular motion But the basic lesson of Newton's work is that you have achieved some real understanding only when you can successfully compare the solution to the equation with the data. His great contemporary Huygens was also both a fine mathematician and a physicist, and (for example) published a detailed solution to the motion of a pendulum. Boyle's gas law provides perhaps the simplest example of a physical law expressed in terms of an equation -- but in its original formulation it only involved an elementary scaling relation. Newton's formulation of classical dynamics was general and complete; and the application of his law of gravity both to terrestrial and celestial phenomena provided the first startling suggestion that the entire universe is subject to a uniform set of physical laws. So his work really provided the template for further developments in mathematical physics.
Ratengam —Preceding comment was added at 00:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

newton cheveux long en prison —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.254.25.197 (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Known for" items

I simplified the long newly-added list of items in the infobox to just Newtonian mechanics, universal gravitation, calculus, and optics, the four general areas that have been represented in the box for a long time. I'm in awe of Newton's work, but my bet is that the "See also" section is a better place to list all of his many achievements. Jumping from four to eighteen "Known for" items seems like a rather significant change, so could some of the regular contributors to this article leave opinions? - Astrochemist (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page maintenance

This talk page had become rather long, so I have archived all threads shewing no activity this year (2008). I have also added a talk page header, which incorporates links to the archives, and will generate links to future archives. I hope this is helpful to other editors. DuncanHill (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC) huh??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.252.199 (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)