Newton vs Einstein: Proving Newton is the Greatest Physics Person

In summary, the conversation revolves around the topic of Newton versus Einstein and the idea of proving that Newton is the greatest physics person alive. Some argue that Einstein copied Newton's findings while others believe that both scientists made valuable contributions to the field of physics. There is also a suggestion to focus on the factual accounts of each man's discoveries rather than trying to compare and prove one is better than the other. Ultimately, the assignment to prove who is better is deemed as a ridiculous and subjective task.
  • #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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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!
 
Back
Top