http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...887412,00.html :

THE RESULTS

Royal Society scientists

Newton 86.2%
Einstein 13.8%

Members of the public

Newton 61.8%
Einstein 38.2%

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...887412,00.html :

THE RESULTS

Royal Society scientists

Newton 86.2%
Einstein 13.8%

Members of the public

Newton 61.8%
Einstein 38.2%

Yet the comparison is not justified: Newton and Einstein are
incommensurable (as suggested by Kuhn and Feyerabend):

http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev7.htm

Pentcho Valev

Einstein got to look at Newton's notes, but Newton didn't get any help
from Einstein.

Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...887412,00.html :

THE RESULTS

Royal Society scientists

Newton 86.2%
Einstein 13.8%

It would be nice to know what the breakdown is on the various
disciplines of science these Royal Society scientists occupy.

Gee, Newton (a Brit) is favored in Britain over Einstein (a non-Brit).
In any case, what is this poll supposed to reveal about anything
(besides British nationalism)?


Members of the public

Newton 61.8%
Einstein 38.2%

Yes, and Valev just told us in another thread how ignorant the British
population is to things in physics.

The larger point is what is supposed to be the meaing of this
comparison. Both scientists were then, and still are, considered as the
top scientists in their own days. Ironically for Valev, Einstein
himself might have favor Newton in such a silly comparison. If Valev,
the self-made ignoramous on Einstein, had ever bothered to read
Einstein's own essay's, he would have eventually come across Einstein's
essay called "The Mechanics of Newton and their Influence on the
Development of Theoretical Physics." In its very first paragraph we
find this:

It is just two hundred years ago that Newton closed
his eyes. We feel impelled at such a moment to
remember this brilliant genius, who determined the
course of western thought, research, and practice like
no one else before or since.

--- Ideas and Opinions, p. 253 (1927).

Newton invented theoretical physics; Einstein re-invented it. But so
too did Faraday, Maxwell, Planck, de Broglie, and Schrodinger.

In article . com,
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...887412,00.html :

THE RESULTS

Royal Society scientists

Newton 86.2%
Einstein 13.8%

Members of the public

Newton 61.8%
Einstein 38.2%

Pentcho Valev



This is the conversion of the initiated?

Wanna make bets on whether the re-establishment of the primacy of Newton's
mechanics in modern physics is almost complete?

--
"I fart for joy and I laugh more than if I had cast my old age, as a
serpent does its skin." -- Aristophanes, Peace, 421 BC

wrote in message
ups.com...
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...887412,00.html :

THE RESULTS

Royal Society scientists

Newton 86.2%
Einstein 13.8%
SNIP

The larger point is what is supposed to be the meaing of this
comparison. Both scientists were then, and still are, considered as the
top scientists in their own days. Ironically for Valev, Einstein
himself might have favor Newton in such a silly comparison. If Valev,
the self-made ignoramous on Einstein, had ever bothered to read
Einstein's own essay's, he would have eventually come across Einstein's
essay called "The Mechanics of Newton and their Influence on the
Development of Theoretical Physics." In its very first paragraph we
find this:

It is just two hundred years ago that Newton closed
his eyes. We feel impelled at such a moment to
remember this brilliant genius, who determined the
course of western thought, research, and practice like
no one else before or since.

--- Ideas and Opinions, p. 253 (1927).

Newton invented theoretical physics; Einstein re-invented it. But so
too did Faraday, Maxwell, Planck, de Broglie, and Schrodinger.

Well said.
Harald

Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...887412,00.html :

THE RESULTS

Royal Society scientists

Newton 86.2%
Einstein 13.8%

Members of the public

Newton 61.8%
Einstein 38.2%

This was an on-line (i.e. unscientific) poll of *perceived relative
merit* of the work of both individuals.

While I agree that Newton's work was more diverse and represented a
greater shift in thinking (compared to previous ideas) than Einstein's,
Einstein's relativity theory is a more accurate description of the
operation of the universe than Newton's.

Where the difference between the theoretical predictions of the two
views is measurable, ALL measurements support Einstein over Newton.

To call the results of this crude poll representative of a 'conversion'
is myopic and arrogant.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

"tadchem" wrote in message
oups.com...

Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...887412,00.html :

THE RESULTS

Royal Society scientists

Newton 86.2%
Einstein 13.8%

Members of the public

Newton 61.8%
Einstein 38.2%

This was an on-line (i.e. unscientific) poll of *perceived relative
merit* of the work of both individuals.

While I agree that Newton's work was more diverse and represented a
greater shift in thinking (compared to previous ideas) than Einstein's,
Einstein's relativity theory is a more accurate description of the
operation of the universe than Newton's.


Idiotic nonsense.




Where the difference between the theoretical predictions of the two
views is measurable, ALL measurements support Einstein over Newton.

How about the magnitude of V1493Aql? Isn't that a measurement?

To call the results of this crude poll representative of a 'conversion'
is myopic and arrogant.

Sagnac for the lab, and
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)

(Or stars explode twice in three months).
That explanation is Newtonian, myopic Einstein doesn't have an explanation,
none at all.

You are myopic, ignorant and arrogant, Davidson.

Androcles.

Androcles wrote:
"tadchem" wrote in message
oups.com...

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...887412,00.html :

THE RESULTS

Royal Society scientists

Newton 86.2%
Einstein 13.8%

Members of the public

Newton 61.8%
Einstein 38.2%

This was an on-line (i.e. unscientific) poll of *perceived relative
merit* of the work of both individuals.

While I agree that Newton's work was more diverse and represented a
greater shift in thinking (compared to previous ideas) than Einstein's,
Einstein's relativity theory is a more accurate description of the
operation of the universe than Newton's.



Idiotic nonsense.




Where the difference between the theoretical predictions of the two
views is measurable, ALL measurements support Einstein over Newton.


How about the magnitude of V1493Aql? Isn't that a measurement?


To call the results of this crude poll representative of a 'conversion'
is myopic and arrogant.


Sagnac for the lab, and
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)

(Or stars explode twice in three months).
That explanation is Newtonian, myopic Einstein doesn't have an explanation,
none at all.

You are myopic, ignorant and arrogant, Davidson.

Androcles.



Androcles doesn't understand much of physics, let alone GTR. Just
ignore him.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Andro...ers.pandora.be

In article .com, "tadchem" writes:

Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...887412,00.html :

THE RESULTS

Royal Society scientists

Newton 86.2%
Einstein 13.8%

Members of the public

Newton 61.8%
Einstein 38.2%

This was an on-line (i.e. unscientific) poll of *perceived relative
merit* of the work of both individuals.

While I agree that Newton's work was more diverse and represented a
greater shift in thinking (compared to previous ideas) than Einstein's,
Einstein's relativity theory is a more accurate description of the
operation of the universe than Newton's.

That's, actually, irrelevant. When person A generates a whole new
physical theory, and person B writes yet one more paper adding a tiny
tidbit of knowledge to what A already created, the model in B's
posession presents a more accurate description of the universe than
this of A. Yet, there is little doubt whose contribution is greater,
in the case above.

So, when comparing the relative merits of the contributions of two
different scientists, the issue of who left us a more accurate picture
of the universe is, in general, not relevant (with the exception of a
case when they worked in parallel, not sequntially). However, once
this issue is removed then:

a) The comparison measures intangibles, such as "scope", "impact"
etc. thus it becomes a mere matter of opinions.

b) The comparison says nothing about whose scientific model is better
(obviously so, since this criterion has just been removed).


Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"