Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 15th, 2017, 05:33 AM   #11

Voltaires Hat's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Feb 2017
From: Canada
Posts: 73

I'll raise you the impact of Newton or Einstein vs the understanding of particular natural laws emerging at a specific point in history.
Voltaires Hat is online now  
Remove Ads
Old November 15th, 2017, 05:45 AM   #12

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 20,087
Blog Entries: 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maoistic View Post
Neither Gatling nor Maxim developed their guns reading Newton. The muskets and rifles of the 19th century also didn't make use of Newton. The AK-47 and M16 of the 20th and current century also didn't use Newton.
Sure, many inventors follow an empirical method, without studying the scientific bases of what they do. It happens [otherwise how was it possible to develop artillery before of Newton? Or before of Galilei?].

But after Newton there was the possibility to optimize the result [more accuracy, more efficiency, less costs ...].
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old November 15th, 2017, 05:47 AM   #13

Maoistic's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Commune
Posts: 214

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlpinLuke View Post
But after Newton there was the possibility to optimize the result [more accuracy, more efficiency, less costs ...].
That is still done through trial and error. Newton is not only literally not needed for that, but he isn't even read.
Maoistic is offline  
Old November 15th, 2017, 05:53 AM   #14

Maoistic's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Commune
Posts: 214

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voltaires Hat View Post
I'll raise you the impact of Newton or Einstein vs the understanding of particular natural laws emerging at a specific point in history.
I raise you Plato's Timaeus. About the only thing Plato didn't know about how the natural world worked compared to Newton and heck, even Einstein, was that the universe isn't geocentric.
Maoistic is offline  
Old November 15th, 2017, 06:40 AM   #15

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 20,087
Blog Entries: 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maoistic View Post
That is still done through trial and error. Newton is not only literally not needed for that, but he isn't even read.
Engineers can avoid to read Newton, but they study his equations and theories at Uni. So that they can optimize the development of a cannon [just to mention a common piece of artillery], without losing time in a too long period of empirical trials ...
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old November 15th, 2017, 07:08 AM   #16

Ighayere's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,493

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maoistic View Post
I raise you Plato's Timaeus. About the only thing Plato didn't know about how the natural world worked compared to Newton and heck, even Einstein, was that the universe isn't geocentric.
As far as actual scientific content (that is, actual, verifiable, knowledge) is concerned, Timaeus is way below the level of Newton's Principia or Einstein's papers.

It's an interesting and creative philosophical work, but it's not what you seem to believe it to be.
Ighayere is offline  
Old November 15th, 2017, 07:11 AM   #17

Ighayere's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,493

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maoistic View Post
Not really. Even things like planes hardly rely on Newton. The Wright Brothers developed aviation technology pretty much through trial and error, not by reading Newton. Modern architects may also receive some passing knowledge of Newton in colleges, but they don't rely on him for their skyscrapers. Even in Newton's times, Britain did not industrialise through what Newton said.

Both Newton and Einstein are extremely overrated. I would even dare say Plato knew as much as Newton about natural physics, he just didn't mathematise what he knew like Newton did.
The Wright brothers used Newtonian physics:

http://corescholar.libraries.wright....text=following
Ighayere is offline  
Old November 15th, 2017, 07:21 AM   #18

Ighayere's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,493

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maoistic View Post
Modern architects may also receive some passing knowledge of Newton in colleges, but they don't rely on him for their skyscrapers.
Modern architectural engineers, structural engineers, etc. pretty much everywhere in the world take a course in statics, which is based on Newtonian physics.

Great buildings were built for thousands of years without Newton, and there's no doubt that if humans didn't know about Newton's physics we would still built great buildings anyway, but modern structural engineers do study Newtonian physics.
Ighayere is offline  
Old November 15th, 2017, 07:28 AM   #19

Maoistic's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Commune
Posts: 214

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ighayere View Post
As far as actual scientific content (that is, actual, verifiable, knowledge) is concerned, Timaeus is way below the level of Newton's Principia or Einstein's papers.

It's an interesting and creative philosophical work, but it's not what you seem to believe it to be.
You need to ignore how he describes particles, space, the orbits of the stars, their interaction with incorporeal entities in complex ways, etc., all of which easily match Newton and Einstein. Plato simply didn't mathematise his knowledge like them, most likely because he thought it wasn't necessary.
Maoistic is offline  
Old November 15th, 2017, 07:28 AM   #20

Ighayere's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,493

Quote:
Originally Posted by Disciple of Sophia View Post
Both were and are greatly overrated. Newton was a successful idea thief who managed to smear the creators of "his" ideas. The theory of gravity was already suggested by Kepler. The Inverse Square Law that is "Newton's" extension of it was stolen by him from Robert Hooke who was it's real creator. "Newton's" calculus was likewise stolen ideas this time from Leibniz whom Newton actively slandered as an idea thief of "his" calculus. His successes as an idea thief were mainly due to him being the president of the Royal Society of Science and having the support of the House of Este (alias the: Guelfs; the Welfs; House of Hanover or House of Windsor).

As far as Newton being the founder of modern science, lol, I'll answer with three words The Portsmouth Papers.

Einstein has had little effect on the world, but a great deal of effect on astro-physics, which is a very soft science which is mainly a junk science (AKA not observable and not testable). It has a large house of hypotheses which like a house of cards if anyone of them is wrong will fall apart into nothing.

Both of these men were more Media Stars than men who profoundly changed the world.
Almost everything in this post is either completely wrong or is misleading. The only thing I somewhat agree with is the notion that Newton isn't really the "father" of modern science, even if he is the greatest scientist of the last several hundred years.

And both Newton's and Einstein's work had a great impact on the world, with Newton's work having a bigger impact. The considerable impact of their work is not some mere media myth manufactured to mislead the masses.
Ighayere is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
einstein, impact, newton



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
are the achievements of Newton and Einstein really that impressive? RemGrade Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 13 March 5th, 2016 07:46 AM
historical impact of animals Port Natural Environment 17 March 13th, 2014 01:22 PM
Meteorite Impact @ Amarna, Egypt? - Historical Mystery #2 dreamregent Ancient History 14 October 8th, 2013 02:47 AM
Gutenberg and Einstein thomasm402 European History 14 July 5th, 2013 09:20 AM
Help needed in determining meaning & historical significance of passages re: Newton, Kepler, Galileo benhist History Help 0 September 19th, 2010 04:16 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.