In addition to all the things Tyson mentions, Newton also built the first working reflector telescope, revolutionising the way we view the night sky. In mathematics he is responsible for generalised binomial theorem, 'Newton's Identities' which give relations between two types of symmetric polynomials which just happens to be some of the mathematics used in general relativity, as well as developing Newton's method, another very useful mathematical technique. These are just a few of the many mathematical achievements of Newton.
What's with all these Newton critics badgering and poo-pooing his achievements ? If he's good enough for Neil De Grasse Tyson, he's good enough for me.
Really? Newton is pretty much universally recognised as the greatest scientist to walk the earth. Anyone who denies it is either ignorant or not educated enough to realise it.
Newton has been turned into a poster boy for the Creationists because of his religious writings, they are trying to prove that "smart people" can be Christian fundamentalists, too. They conveniently ignore the fact that only his scientific work is still revered today while his religious studies are forgotten.
Sir Newtons , Tesla and Faraday are three scientists that changed the world even though they had more to give but life went against them in different ways .
There are numerous mathematicians and physicists who have shaped the formal and natural science and so effectively our world, eg. Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, Lagrange, Laplace, Euler, Maxwell, Hamilton, Bernoulli, Gauss, Husserl, Frege, Cantor, Hilbert, Godel, Weyl, Pauli, Dirac, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Minkowski, Planck, Poincare, Einstein, Fermi, Cartan, Turing, von Neumann, Feynman, etc among many, many others. The list defies compilation. In either case, I'm not too shabby.
III. Here is where the problem lies: the ability to merely do statistics has lead to a split between studying the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the phenomenon. Moreover it has convinces many that such a split is even warranted and worst of all, it enables one to ignore the quest for actual advancement of the understanding of said phenomenon since it only focuses on whether hypotheses are statistically true or false.
If one has any interest in science then one becomes totally awestruck at Isaac Newton's staggering talent which changed the world.Ot's a pity he can't be cloned!
Albert Einstein said about Newton that "His clear and wide ideas will forever retain their significance as the foundation on which our modern conceptions of physics have been built."
@ElyasFraenkelIsaacs I'm still only a student in both physics and medicine. In the NL, where I live, it's a bit different: everyone planning to go into natural/applied science or mathematics in university has to 'major' in all the natural sciences and mathematics. The only exception to this is that you can either choose biology or take additional classes in mathematics, classical physics and chemistry. In either case, calculus and biochemistry is in the final year curriculum for all students.
I'm a mathematician currently working on topics related to astrophysics and gravitational field theory using such as Hamiltonians and spinors ala Elie Cartan. This field among some topics touches on intranuclear particles like quarks and neutrinos and also similar forces like strong and weak intranuclear attractions.
Newton was one of the greatest scientists of all time. It is a stretch to call Tyson a scientist. Tyson hasn't opened a textbook in that time either. Tyson isa pop science celebrity with very low standards when it comes to rigor and accuracy. A lot of Neil's stuff on Newton is wrong.
@bent (cont) It is then hypothesized that if nucleic acids can arise by themselves in nature, they must arise if the conditions for arising are met. Through this argument biochemistry is capable of stating the conditions, which offer a precise prediction of the chemical composition of the planetary atmosphere a certain time in the past. These predicted values coincide pretty much exactly with what is measured by geologists, making the hypothesis worthy of being upgraded to theory status. (cont)
@ElyasFraenkelIsaacs Biophysicists, biochemists and physiologists do. Biological matter is made of atoms/molecules, predominantly proteins, fats and carbohydrates. To truly understand what these atomic things can and cannot do, in other words to predict organ and organism functions, requires calculus.
developing something new. Even if the relationship often advances through disagreement and ongoing arguments, the back and forth of ideas stimulates thinking and usually pushes one's mind forward much, much more so than when working alone in a vacuum.
VIII. indeed it is only possible for one to know it a posteriori, in other words after a full physically analyzed experiment has demonstrated it to be so. In the same way, many aspects of what are proven to be theorems in mathematics seem to have a direct connection to fundamental physical law, most notably π and i. The fact that the biologist and mathematician aren't aware of these deep interconnections between what they study and what entails physical law demonstrates this.
@benthemiester Ribotic nucleic acid is a valid synonym; translation of trivial chemical terminology into English is arbitrarily simplifiable in this manner. Moreover epigenetics supports the statistical mechanical theory, in that it is predictable using quantum chemical addition of environmentally abundant simple molecules to partially regulate the dynamics of the crystal.
| I usually begin with a more foundational approach as it may offer less confusion to those with anxiety or basic skills problems. An easy example is the syllogism, sic, if a then b . if b then c . thus if a then c . Or commutation: if a = b then b = a !!
HELLO, all, Personally, I am a great fan of Ludolph von Ceulan. It has to do with infinity and series expansions. And for the "who is the best" raters, I think, Ludolph, having set the record right on infinity and expansions -- proscribed by the technological "limits" of his time and quite some time before either Newton or Leibnitz -- ranks far ahead!! Always yours, Elyas Isaacs in the City of New York
I'm aware of Proteomics as in the study of amino acids, peptides and complex proteins. I have never heard the term the way you have used it. Please give me the official definition as cited in a journal or encyclopedia and please name the journal. Again Im not sure what this has to do with Newton and Laplace and the subject spoken of?
II. this same problem exists in another form but it is often unrecognized and/or ignored, namely the ability to do statistics in the life and social sciences. This mathematical ability enables one to make statements about phenomena, eg. cells, without actually knowing what a cell is. Through oversimplified statistical reasoning many hypotheses can be quickly assumed or discarded, without understanding why it must be that way, or in many cases why one's research question is fundamentally flawed.
@ElyasFraenkelIsaacs I understand your point on biologists. Practically all students in biology and associated fields (biochemistry, medicine, etc) have little understanding of the relevance of physics (and therefore calculus) to their subject. They know it vaguely, but lack real understanding. The problem is that this is also true of almost all their professors and therefore their subject remains taught in 'un-mathematical' form. Physicists however are masters in calculus: we invented it.
IV. i.e. it only enables one to make a good hypothesis and/or measurement based on few assumed facts about the phenomenon but does not even attempt to answer the interrelation of phenomenon with said facts. The problem is that this hypothesis is in practice taken as sufficient and the process of attaining theory status is actually never reached, much less attempted. This is not scientific experimentation, this is applied hypothesis testing at best.
|| || Another approach may give a processable numeric system. Begin with a particular idea or concept. Then state a process of inclusion or combining or building or "induction". All then is choose to begin and the concept, call it 1, in combined, "inducted" to 1 + 1 = 2.
VI. Example: a liver, or any other arbitrary organ or tissue, is in reality literally a vast and extremely complicated collection of atoms, made of particles following and even being in existence due to physical laws. At first glance this is in no way obvious, but when carefully analysed it becomes clearer that all the qualities of the liver are purely a direct consequence of its physical properties, namely the type of particles and the quantum electrodynamic interactions between them.
VII. These interactions lead to every single aspect of the particles, the properties of the atoms, molecules and proteins, the self-assemblage into what is referred to as cells, and ultimately the quality and function of the entire liver, in essence caused by arising of the enormous complication in the combination of all the different physical aspects. It does not seem possible that anyone reasoning about this could have known this to be true a priori;
V. Science, i.e. knowledge can only be called knowledge if the reasoning of the hypothesis is based on some prior observational evidence. Even stronger: knowledge is evidence, it is precisely that which is known from experience/experiment. The understanding of knowledge however requires the theory, which is exactly what physics is by providing what is extremely probable based on unfalsified, potentially unfalsifiable axioms that we call physical laws.
It took from January until August with some seemingly confused delays and upsets. But at Edmund Halley's insistence Newton first published the "de motu" and thereafter . ... well, the rest is history. But, as given above, Leibnitz in Germany going along with Newton's developing contemplations on the cosmos was also advancing the then brand new theory of infinitesimals viz. fluxions leading to a limit and theretoso the calculus.
@benthemiester No, it is called a physical hypothesis. All (theoretical) physical hypotheses are of necessity stated in 'circular reasoning' form for them to be consistent with known observations AND at the same time be capable of making new predictions. You cannot by a priori reasoning alone decide that the theory is false, moreover one cannot even decide what an experiment can or cannot decide, only experiment can decide that. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific "truth".
@benthemiester (cont) Here is where the crux of the argument lay: if biology is purely chemical, then by understanding the chemical interactions we should be able to understand everything in biology. Now, what is it that determines the qualitative aspect of all of chemistry? We have found out that it is only one thing, namely the motion of electrons. In other words everything that is known and unknown in biology, must by definition, be required to be purely quantum mechanical, (cont)
Funny. I don't agree with Tyson on much but he's spot on about Newton. I would make the argument that Newton was the smartest person who ever lived. If you get past petty uninformed RUclips videos, it is quite clear. His mathematics are still trying to be read an understood by people I hold in high regard. All the accomplishments and IQ tests of people who followed this marvel of intellect are still trying to figure him out.
Well, a few of my fav mathematicians are Elie Cartan, George Danzig, Boole, Jacquet, Goldfeld, Linton, Comfort, Wood, Avraham Fraenkel, Ernesto Zermelo, Aristotle, Sophus Lie, Kumar, Birman, Thorn, Misner, Greene, Russell, Liebnitz, Pascal, the list goes on and on and on and more are missing than are listed here . ...
@benthemiester Knowing the name of something =! knowing something. I translate from Dutch chemistry names to English chemistry names, so I apologize if the differing terms of 'ribotic nucleic' and 'ribonucleic' which are equivalent in Dutch chemistry terminology means that much to you. And I maintain the wording of 'ribotic nucleic', as in you can also have other molecules in combination with nucleic acids than only ribose, eg. oxyribose, nitroribose, i.e. other ribotic molecules. Regards.
Mathematics is to me really more of an art modeling whatever part of the real world or imagined possibilities that can be presented by abstract form. Physicists by dealing only with the "real" world are constrained to what fits experimental forms. Mathematics is not so constrained. What I have always found interesting is that many mathematical statments, forms, elements, whatever ... exist only as pure research maths sort of like art. But even then many times these seemingly strange oddities
@benthemiester (cont) Newton specifically believed in a complete description of reality which was a combination of classical physics and alchemy. Since then, we have discovered chemistry and completely abandoned the idea of alchemy. This is the heart of the problem: classical physics is incompatible with the existence of chemical atoms. Statistical mechanics on the other hand dictates that atoms must exist and must form a type of molecule which is known to us as life: (cont)
I was thinking . ...what may not be known looking aside from the purely mathematical side of the invention of the calculus was the importance that astronomy had. It was 1684 and Edmund Halley with Hooke's complicity who had just demonstrated Kepler's third law of bodies in motion, that is, the scheme of elliptical orbits.
@benthemiester The existence of molecular, cellular, proteomical, organ/process-specifc and integrated physiological mechanics in biological systems. In other words the fact that these things exist in nature exactly in the mechanical way as predicted by the theory is the experimental evidence you are looking for. In other words, everything ever measured/experimented/observed in the fields of chemistry and biology. These fields themselves are the description of the experiment and its results.
@TehPhysicalist "Erwin Schrödinger: "The obvious inability of present-day physics and chemistry to account for such events is no reason at all for doubting that they can be accounted for by those sciences." Philosophically speaking you can imagine anything you want, but without empirical evidence all you have is hope.. The fact that Schrödinger dead cat has the same atomic structure as the live one further demonstrates that physics and chemistry alone cannot account for life.
Well, this is something on which we disagree. But that is not a bad thing. One does not always agree on all matters. Why I disagree is I do belong to a number of seminars, meetings, colloquia, study groups, and the like at the post doctoral and professional level. With such I find it very, very elemental to discern which are directly pure mathematics, computational science, [mathematical]physics, and others such as computational biology quite in the forefront of today's scientific endeavor.
@benthemiester No, Newton was not full of it: his hypothesis that mechanics required divine intellect to make it work was simply wrong; only in that aspect was he full of it. Laplace restated Newton's equations in differential form, by which the answer pretty much comes out automatically. You must understand that Newton's method to acquire new knowledge (physics) is what solidifies him as the greatest scientist ever. Physics completely surpasses everything else in generating knowledge.
Did you know that as a small child ISAAC NEWTON liked to "fly". He'd stand atop a short cliff during windy weather and hold his coat wide along his sides under the arms. Then, he'd jump from the cliff and measure how far the wind carried him forward. I think Isaac learned more about gravity and momentum from this than from the falling apple!! Dr. ELYAS FRAENKEL ISAACS, Ph.D.
@TehPhysicalist "It is then hypothesized that if nucleic acids can arise by themselves in nature, they must arise if the conditions for arising are met" This is called circular reasoning. It is to abroad and can even hold true to intelligent design. Your trying to lecture me about a lack of understanding yet you gave the Laplace Napoleon story that is considered by most historians to fall under the category of legend which is based on an unsourced account by R. Ball in 1908.
@benthemiester (cont) that is a certain type of crystal which can reproduce itself. We now know that this is a ribotic nucleic acid, in our case specifically one of with one oxygen atom less, namely DNA. Everything in known biology is a description of this molecule undergoing physical interactions with other atoms and particles. From the evolutionary view, i.e. the proteomic and genetic view, everything about the phenomenon of life itself is explainable by what DNA does. (cont)
Does anyone here know the video where Neil Degrasse Tyson is talking about Isaac Newton I believe and he quotes Isaac Newton talking about how it was not necessary to invoke a God for the universe to exist. Or do you know the scientist who said that and give a website where I can find said quote. Thank you for your time this has been Anna Alana, stay awesome Gotham.
That's Neil Tysons lecture on Intelligent design. I believe it was Leplace responding to Napoleon.. when asked where God played a role in the stability of the solar system.. Laplace replied "I have no need for that hypothesis"
+SelfAudioBook When God said "Let there be light.", 13.8 bil yrs ago(or 6000 yrs ago), If no one was around, how do you know what God said? Did God speak English? What language did God speak? Who was God talking to? Did God not know voice does not travel in the space especially before the big bang? How did God talk if God is immaterial and has no material mouth? Does God like talking to himself? How did God know what to say if God is immaterial and has no material brain to think and plan with? Did God create light from nothing or did God pull something from his sleeve to create light?
+SelfAudioBook Newton was pretty much forced to be religious, remember that he lived in a time where if you lived in europe and you weren't chatolic, you'd be tortured and killed, so I call for doubt about him being very religious.
Newton was looked at for some time as a bit of an odd ball by the English scientific community but finally published "Philosophia Naturalis, Principia Mathematica" to acclaim, became England's Exchequer of the Currency and eventually became head of the Royal Academy of Sciences for a number of years. Thereso is Isaac Newton better remembered as "the inventor of the calculus". However, to the mathematical community and specialist audience, Gottfried Leibnitz's achievements in mathematics . ...
I like your list. However, it was my understanding we were focusing on mathematics. You have mixed physicists, computational scientists, and philosophers. There is nothing wrong there except it confuses a presumed beginning direction to mathematics. I'd also go to Pythagorus, Philo, Bonfils, Fermat, Cauchy, Goldwasser, Brun, Euclid, Pappas, Taylor, and so on and on ...
2) The mathematician has a different view of reality from the physicist, one however that is instrumental to comprehend in order to be able to truly comprehend reality. He however is blinded by certainty whereas the physicist knows very well the naivety of merely precise mathematical reasoning. This experience IMO is fundamental to getting closer to “truth”; mathematicians can see the trees, but are not aware of the forest. Comp scientists are merely a type of applied scientific mathematicians.
@TehPhysicalist cont..... This implies a fine tuner and gives evidence of, as in the worlds of Fred Hoyle, for some kind of "supper intellect" There is an article in the Journal Life entitled, "Is Life Unique?" This article challenges the notion that physics and chemistry alone can account much of this, including life, thought, etc.
I was focusing more on mathematicians/physicists that were essential to furthering the understanding of fundamental physical theory and so all of science, Newton of course being the prime example. Without analytic mathematization in the way that Newton applied it there is no physics and therefore no respectable natural science. I have a saying that all physicists are born mathematicians. I believe we physicists learn to forsake pure mathematics the moment we are partially hit by reality. (cont)
@ElyasFraenkelIsaacs To make this point clearer I suggest you watch 'The Relation of Mathematics to Physics': /watch?v=kd0xTfdt6qw Today we have both computer scientists and physicists contributing to 'pure' mathematics. My point is that really great mathematicians like Gauss and Von Neumann tend to be at least 'okay' physicists and really great physicists like Newton and Feynman tend to be at least 'okay' mathematicians; mathematical physicists like Penrose and Witten approach ideality.
@TehPhysicali What does biology or particle physics have to do with the subject? Do u think theses subjects disprove intelligent design? If anything what we now know concerning the fine tuning of the cosmos & the exponential probability factors involved have caused even atheist like R. Penrose to state that the universe could not have come about by chance. In biology ID theory caused even the late great Anthony Flew to finally renounce atheism after he came to understand the factors involved.
I don’t know any atheists who believe the universe is a design. The universe has evolved over billions of years as a result of the interactions of energy and matter
I've taught and tutored biology majors and biologists. And on the whole as a class they avoid all but the most simple maths. As the "old wives tale" goes, biologists talk to organic chemists who talk to regular chemists who talk to physicists who talk to applied mathematicians who talk to research mathematicians who talk to the Lord or Mother Nature or both.
I really am only just adding to the list. How many mathematicians whether related to physics or other branches of scientific endeavor or not have increased our understanding and wisdom about life. A very few are given here. Somewhere was a comment about Einstein thus the comment on LaPlace and the transform, that is all. So, what's new with you??
3) The way I am saying this here gives some negative connotation to the viewpoint of the mathematician, which I believe is warranted. Once a physicist decides to fully and truly start thinking like a pure mathematician is when they have fallen off the deep end. It is a deep well from where it seems only few are able to return. The field of mathematical physics seems to be a cesspool for those who choose to trade in scientific integrity for mathematical rigor and therefore faulty reasoning.
I beg your pardon, Neil de Grasse Tyson. I am a lineal descendant of the English Royal House of York. We encouraged Isaac Newtons' collaborations with Edmund Halley. . ... And, we paid for that book!! You're welcome!! Elyas Fraenkel Isaacs
@TehPhysicalist "You cannot by a priori reasoning alone decide that the theory is false, moreover one cannot even decide what an experiment can or cannot decide, only experiment can decide that" I wasn't trying to, in fact I challenge you to show me the experiment that confirms your hypothesis. Please dont give me (just because we cant do it doesn't mean its not possible). I can use the same argument about flying elephants on Mars.
of abstraction do eventually attach to real life concepts or ideas. A good example going right back to Einstein and relativity is that until Einstein's physics promoted it LaPlace's Transform was mostly just an interestihg math equation. You posit the need for realtiy based math. Why I ask?? Why do clumping while compiling the primes or the decimal expansion of PI need explaining? We may one day attach reality. But why apriori must we have that??
And Leonardo Da Vinci was slightly ahead of Isaac. He could also write music, paint eternal artistry as well as do magnificent science and remarkable inventions.
I. Of course, pure math almost always turns out to be useful. I myself simply see pure math as wonders undreamt of, concepts unrealized in their utility, whether possibly, actually or potentially real, objectively and/or subjectively true. As for why, the answer is simple, namely in order to truly understand things leading to an overall intellectual progression. Take for example the argument Feynman gives here about the Mayan astronomer: /watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k Analogously, (cont)
@benthemiester (cont) In short to hold onto such a view requires a willful disregard of the evidence and a flight from self knowledge. Finally, as you will probably bring it up I will directly highlight the 'non-chemical biological' elephant in the room: consciousness. To that end I quote that great man, Erwin Schrödinger: "The obvious inability of present-day physics and chemistry to account for such events is no reason at all for doubting that they can be accounted for by those sciences."
@ElyasFraenkelIsaacs [cont] Sure, mathematicians occasionally help us but they are not necessary because physicists are themselves a certain 'type' of mathematician. The use of mathematics paired with the scientific method is what makes our subject 'physics' and not merely 'natural philosophy', as it was prior to Isaac Newton and his invention of calculus to describe nature what led him to discover and demonstrate the existence of physical laws. As for Newton vs Leibniz: xkcd.com/626/
Dude if you wanted to learn about the incredible mysteries of the universe and NO ONE ELSE questioned them, you'd question it. Scientists asks questions, even if its a medium like light that you've seen every day of your life since you could see. That's what scientists do, and when you're as curious and as persistent as Newton, you can do stuff that's kinda weird. That's what happens.
@TehPhysicalist well, both are awesome, now that you asked, but I was referring to Neil Tyson (of course I heard about Mr Newton before, don't be silly, the inventor of pet doors) ;P
@benthemiester Moreover all experiments done at the time did not disprove it, until centuries later and even then it was more an expansion than a refutation. The fact that you are even asking 'what does biology or particle physics have to do with it?' betrays your understanding of the interconnection of all these subjects. Proteomicochemical biology is a prediction of statistical mechanics in a gravitational 'sweet spot' near certain types of stars. You cannot have the one without the other.
@TehPhysicalist Yes I'm familiar with this myth. The story goes that Pierre-Simon Laplace was able to figure out this anomaly. Therefore Newton was sone how full of it. The problem with this story that Tyson often repeats is that it is simply not true. Laplace was never able to solve this mystery. Again Newton never said that we should give up. He only said that he had come to the end of trying to figur this out mathematically. Newton gave us Newtonian physics and a universal law of gravity.
@benthemiester Newton's own knowledge was however incomplete which lead to some faulty hypothesis, like the instantaneous forces, the existence of absolute inertial frames and the argument of design. At the time however it was impossible not to conclude these things: it would've been irrational not to conclude these things were true. But, as is always in physics, the devil is in the details. Only after Newton's method was known could the hypothesis be experimented upon and thus answered.
@TehPhysicalist "Ribotic nucleic acid is a valid synonym; translation of trivial chemical terminology into English is arbitrarily simplifiable in this manner." Please cite a biology dictionary that defines ribotic acid as you insist it does, a simple way is to call it DNA. Or again if you means ribonucleic acid then the term would be RNA. I dont know where you got this mumbo jumbo about epigenetics and I'm not even sure I want to know man.
IX. Only physical reasoning paired with experiment is capable of expounding these a posteriori recognized but a priori real and necessary truths. As far as I am aware, there really is no field of study that reasons in this manner save for physics, not even the mathematicians as explained here: /watch?v=YaUlqXRPMmY All of (natural) science is physical science, there is no other understanding system upon to base. I will end however on this note regarding our differing views: /watch?v=obCjODeoLVw
I have to concur. Had Newton led a normal life just like any other person, he wouldn't have discovered the calculus, he would not have published the Principia, and he would not have dabbled in alchemy for weeks and months on end. Newton, indeed, had many personal oddities. He was a complete loner, he hated the give and take of any scientific discussion, he was wholly aloof from women, and he was very introverted. You really have to be different from your peers if you wanna be like Newton.
..... then there is also Russell, Pascal, Aristotle, Zermelo, Fraenkel, Lie, Galois, Abel, Dedekind, Chebyshev, Kurtzweil, Jaquet, Goldfeld, Birman, Quintas, Kennedy, Gagliardi, Diophantus, Greene, Orshansky, as you said ... too much!!
@benthemiester Actually if you want to discuss anymore biology with myself, I suggest you first watch this. It is in total about an hour long and says pretty much everything necessary for you to know before you can actually understand what I have been trying to tell you. /watch?v=QnQe0xW_JY4&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=SP3EED4C1D684D3ADF (copy and paste it after ''youtube.com")
@benthemiester I apologize, that was specifically not my intention. I am merely trying to convey how extremely difficult the idea is to explain even to scientists who are not somewhat specialized in all the major fields. Schrödinger's cat is nonsense. I have no interest in discussing how it is drivel, it is simply too arbitrary of a subject filled with misapprehension by those (physicists) who know too little about the other sciences and therefore not enough physics to see through it. Regards.
@ElyasFraenkelIsaacs As for general relativity, the mathematics required could have easily been invented by a physicist. Luckily, it was already invented by mathematicians, greatly helping us in our continued interrogation of Nature. This is because alot of mathematics is really generalized physics, eg. geometry and calculus. Mathematics is not physics and physics is not mathematics, the one helps the other. They are both magnificent subjects but they are not identical, nor will they ever be.
![Natanael Cano - Amor Eterno [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EO4prCs6WpM/mqdefault.jpg)
![KAYTRANADA - Witchy (feat. Childish Gambino) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/jGK3YVmGZ3Y/mqdefault.jpg)
In addition to all the things Tyson mentions, Newton also built the first working reflector telescope, revolutionising the way we view the night sky. In mathematics he is responsible for generalised binomial theorem, 'Newton's Identities' which give relations between two types of symmetric polynomials which just happens to be some of the mathematics used in general relativity, as well as developing Newton's method, another very useful mathematical technique. These are just a few of the many mathematical achievements of Newton.
Newton is the greatest scientist ever born on this planet....
What's with all these Newton critics badgering and poo-pooing his achievements ? If he's good enough for Neil De Grasse Tyson, he's good enough for me.
Really? Newton is pretty much universally recognised as the greatest scientist to walk the earth. Anyone who denies it is either ignorant or not educated enough to realise it.
Nameless Paladin Theists _hate_ him for his hard-hobbies of Alchemy and Astrology LOL
A V actually I think Stephen hawking is smarter than Isaac newton any given day
Boril Boyanov Newton was a religious Christian who wrote more books on theology than physics. Go check your facts
Newton has been turned into a poster boy for the Creationists because of his religious writings, they are trying to prove that "smart people" can be Christian fundamentalists, too. They conveniently ignore the fact that only his scientific work is still revered today while his religious studies are forgotten.
"I own everything you've ever written, Please notice me senpai"
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Sir Newtons , Tesla and Faraday are three scientists that changed the world even though they had more to give but life went against them in different ways .
Take Tesla out and we’re good
There are numerous mathematicians and physicists who have shaped the formal and natural science and so effectively our world, eg. Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, Lagrange, Laplace, Euler, Maxwell, Hamilton, Bernoulli, Gauss, Husserl, Frege, Cantor, Hilbert, Godel, Weyl, Pauli, Dirac, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Minkowski, Planck, Poincare, Einstein, Fermi, Cartan, Turing, von Neumann, Feynman, etc among many, many others. The list defies compilation. In either case, I'm not too shabby.
III. Here is where the problem lies: the ability to merely do statistics has lead to a split between studying the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the phenomenon. Moreover it has convinces many that such a split is even warranted and worst of all, it enables one to ignore the quest for actual advancement of the understanding of said phenomenon since it only focuses on whether hypotheses are statistically true or false.
I just love how he talks about Sir Isaac
Most of it is invented history. Tyson embellishes Newton’s accomplishments over a life time and then claims he did it all in two months.
If one has any interest in science then one becomes totally awestruck at Isaac Newton's staggering talent which changed the world.Ot's a pity he can't be cloned!
Newton and Einstein were both high.. interesting
Newton 1st.
this dude is awesome, why have I never heard of him before?
Albert Einstein said about Newton that "His clear and wide ideas will forever retain their significance as the foundation on which our modern conceptions of physics have been built."
@ElyasFraenkelIsaacs I'm still only a student in both physics and medicine. In the NL, where I live, it's a bit different: everyone planning to go into natural/applied science or mathematics in university has to 'major' in all the natural sciences and mathematics. The only exception to this is that you can either choose biology or take additional classes in mathematics, classical physics and chemistry. In either case, calculus and biochemistry is in the final year curriculum for all students.
I'm a mathematician currently working on topics related to astrophysics and gravitational field theory using such as Hamiltonians and spinors ala Elie Cartan. This field among some topics touches on intranuclear particles like quarks and neutrinos and also similar forces like strong and weak intranuclear attractions.
There's no doubt Newton was a gift from God.
Good observation
The way Sir Neil talks about Sir Isaac Newton, I talk about him! ❤️
Newton was one of the greatest scientists of all time. It is a stretch to call Tyson a scientist. Tyson hasn't opened a textbook in that time either.
Tyson isa pop science celebrity with very low standards when it comes to rigor and accuracy. A lot of Neil's stuff on Newton is wrong.
@bent (cont) It is then hypothesized that if nucleic acids can arise by themselves in nature, they must arise if the conditions for arising are met. Through this argument biochemistry is capable of stating the conditions, which offer a precise prediction of the chemical composition of the planetary atmosphere a certain time in the past. These predicted values coincide pretty much exactly with what is measured by geologists, making the hypothesis worthy of being upgraded to theory status. (cont)
@ElyasFraenkelIsaacs Biophysicists, biochemists and physiologists do. Biological matter is made of atoms/molecules, predominantly proteins, fats and carbohydrates. To truly understand what these atomic things can and cannot do, in other words to predict organ and organism functions, requires calculus.
developing something new. Even if the relationship often advances through disagreement and ongoing arguments, the back and forth of ideas stimulates thinking and usually pushes one's mind forward much, much more so than when working alone in a vacuum.
VIII. indeed it is only possible for one to know it a posteriori, in other words after a full physically analyzed experiment has demonstrated it to be so. In the same way, many aspects of what are proven to be theorems in mathematics seem to have a direct connection to fundamental physical law, most notably π and i. The fact that the biologist and mathematician aren't aware of these deep interconnections between what they study and what entails physical law demonstrates this.
@benthemiester Ribotic nucleic acid is a valid synonym; translation of trivial chemical terminology into English is arbitrarily simplifiable in this manner.
Moreover epigenetics supports the statistical mechanical theory, in that it is predictable using quantum chemical addition of environmentally abundant simple molecules to partially regulate the dynamics of the crystal.
| I usually begin with a more foundational approach as it may offer less confusion to those with anxiety or basic skills problems. An easy example is the syllogism, sic, if a then b . if b then c . thus if a then c . Or commutation: if a = b then b = a !!
HELLO, all,
Personally, I am a great fan of Ludolph von Ceulan. It has to do with infinity and series expansions. And for the "who is the best" raters, I think, Ludolph, having set the record right on infinity and expansions -- proscribed by the technological "limits" of his time and quite some time before either Newton or Leibnitz -- ranks far ahead!!
Always yours,
Elyas Isaacs
in the City of New York
I'm aware of Proteomics as in the study of amino acids, peptides and complex proteins. I have never heard the term the way you have used it. Please give me the official definition as cited in a journal or encyclopedia and please name the journal. Again Im not sure what this has to do with Newton and Laplace and the subject spoken of?
II. this same problem exists in another form but it is often unrecognized and/or ignored, namely the ability to do statistics in the life and social sciences. This mathematical ability enables one to make statements about phenomena, eg. cells, without actually knowing what a cell is. Through oversimplified statistical reasoning many hypotheses can be quickly assumed or discarded, without understanding why it must be that way, or in many cases why one's research question is fundamentally flawed.
Harry Seldon invented psychohistory for this purpose, “The Foundation trilogy” Isaac Asimov 😉
@ElyasFraenkelIsaacs I understand your point on biologists. Practically all students in biology and associated fields (biochemistry, medicine, etc) have little understanding of the relevance of physics (and therefore calculus) to their subject. They know it vaguely, but lack real understanding. The problem is that this is also true of almost all their professors and therefore their subject remains taught in 'un-mathematical' form. Physicists however are masters in calculus: we invented it.
IV. i.e. it only enables one to make a good hypothesis and/or measurement based on few assumed facts about the phenomenon but does not even attempt to answer the interrelation of phenomenon with said facts. The problem is that this hypothesis is in practice taken as sufficient and the process of attaining theory status is actually never reached, much less attempted. This is not scientific experimentation, this is applied hypothesis testing at best.
|| || Another approach may give a processable numeric system. Begin with a particular idea or concept. Then state a process of inclusion or combining or building or "induction". All then is choose to begin and the concept, call it 1, in combined, "inducted" to 1 + 1 = 2.
VI. Example: a liver, or any other arbitrary organ or tissue, is in reality literally a vast and extremely complicated collection of atoms, made of particles following and even being in existence due to physical laws. At first glance this is in no way obvious, but when carefully analysed it becomes clearer that all the qualities of the liver are purely a direct consequence of its physical properties, namely the type of particles and the quantum electrodynamic interactions between them.
VII. These interactions lead to every single aspect of the particles, the properties of the atoms, molecules and proteins, the self-assemblage into what is referred to as cells, and ultimately the quality and function of the entire liver, in essence caused by arising of the enormous complication in the combination of all the different physical aspects. It does not seem possible that anyone reasoning about this could have known this to be true a priori;
V. Science, i.e. knowledge can only be called knowledge if the reasoning of the hypothesis is based on some prior observational evidence. Even stronger: knowledge is evidence, it is precisely that which is known from experience/experiment. The understanding of knowledge however requires the theory, which is exactly what physics is by providing what is extremely probable based on unfalsified, potentially unfalsifiable axioms that we call physical laws.
Wow Tyson, you don't have to roast the interviewer so hard. 0_0
It took from January until August with some seemingly confused delays and upsets. But at Edmund Halley's insistence Newton first published the "de motu" and thereafter . ... well, the rest is history. But, as given above, Leibnitz in Germany going along with Newton's developing contemplations on the cosmos was also advancing the then brand new theory of infinitesimals viz. fluxions leading to a limit and theretoso the calculus.
@benthemiester No, it is called a physical hypothesis. All (theoretical) physical hypotheses are of necessity stated in 'circular reasoning' form for them to be consistent with known observations AND at the same time be capable of making new predictions. You cannot by a priori reasoning alone decide that the theory is false, moreover one cannot even decide what an experiment can or cannot decide, only experiment can decide that. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific "truth".
@benthemiester (cont) Here is where the crux of the argument lay: if biology is purely chemical, then by understanding the chemical interactions we should be able to understand everything in biology. Now, what is it that determines the qualitative aspect of all of chemistry? We have found out that it is only one thing, namely the motion of electrons. In other words everything that is known and unknown in biology, must by definition, be required to be purely quantum mechanical, (cont)
Neil threw major shade on philosophers
Funny. I don't agree with Tyson on much but he's spot on about Newton. I would make the argument that Newton was the smartest person who ever lived. If you get past petty uninformed RUclips videos, it is quite clear. His mathematics are still trying to be read an understood by people I hold in high regard. All the accomplishments and IQ tests of people who followed this marvel of intellect are still trying to figure him out.
Well, a few of my fav mathematicians are Elie Cartan, George Danzig, Boole, Jacquet, Goldfeld, Linton, Comfort, Wood, Avraham Fraenkel, Ernesto Zermelo, Aristotle, Sophus Lie, Kumar, Birman, Thorn, Misner, Greene, Russell, Liebnitz, Pascal, the list goes on and on and on and more are missing than are listed here . ...
@mimosveta Isaac Newton or Neil Tyson (the guy getting interviewed)?
@benthemiester Knowing the name of something =! knowing something.
I translate from Dutch chemistry names to English chemistry names, so I apologize if the differing terms of 'ribotic nucleic' and 'ribonucleic' which are equivalent in Dutch chemistry terminology means that much to you. And I maintain the wording of 'ribotic nucleic', as in you can also have other molecules in combination with nucleic acids than only ribose, eg. oxyribose, nitroribose, i.e. other ribotic molecules. Regards.
Mathematics is to me really more of an art modeling whatever part of the real world or imagined possibilities that can be presented by abstract form. Physicists by dealing only with the "real" world are constrained to what fits experimental forms. Mathematics is not so constrained. What I have always found interesting is that many mathematical statments, forms, elements, whatever ... exist only as pure research maths sort of like art. But even then many times these seemingly strange oddities
@benthemiester (cont)
Newton specifically believed in a complete description of reality which was a combination of classical physics and alchemy. Since then, we have discovered chemistry and completely abandoned the idea of alchemy. This is the heart of the problem: classical physics is incompatible with the existence of chemical atoms.
Statistical mechanics on the other hand dictates that atoms must exist and must form a type of molecule which is known to us as life: (cont)
I was thinking . ...what may not be known looking aside from the purely mathematical side of the invention of the calculus was the importance that astronomy had. It was 1684 and Edmund Halley with Hooke's complicity who had just demonstrated Kepler's third law of bodies in motion, that is, the scheme of elliptical orbits.
hi everybody!
i hope everyone loves science here, i sure do :)
thank you uploader for the video
@benthemiester The existence of molecular, cellular, proteomical, organ/process-specifc and integrated physiological mechanics in biological systems. In other words the fact that these things exist in nature exactly in the mechanical way as predicted by the theory is the experimental evidence you are looking for. In other words, everything ever measured/experimented/observed in the fields of chemistry and biology. These fields themselves are the description of the experiment and its results.
to understand the basics you start at the basics
@TehPhysicalist "Erwin Schrödinger: "The obvious inability of present-day physics and chemistry to account for such events is no reason at all for doubting that they can be accounted for by those sciences."
Philosophically speaking you can imagine anything you want, but without empirical evidence all you have is hope.. The fact that Schrödinger dead cat has the same atomic structure as the live one further demonstrates that physics and chemistry alone cannot account for life.
@j24800 Oh really? And who exactly were the "many people" that you speak of?
Well, this is something on which we disagree. But that is not a bad thing. One does not always agree on all matters. Why I disagree is I do belong to a number of seminars, meetings, colloquia, study groups, and the like at the post doctoral and professional level. With such I find it very, very elemental to discern which are directly pure mathematics, computational science, [mathematical]physics, and others such as computational biology quite in the forefront of today's scientific endeavor.
03:13 is the point of what he's saying.
@benthemiester No, Newton was not full of it: his hypothesis that mechanics required divine intellect to make it work was simply wrong; only in that aspect was he full of it. Laplace restated Newton's equations in differential form, by which the answer pretty much comes out automatically. You must understand that Newton's method to acquire new knowledge (physics) is what solidifies him as the greatest scientist ever. Physics completely surpasses everything else in generating knowledge.
Did you know that as a small child ISAAC NEWTON liked to "fly". He'd stand atop a short cliff during windy weather and hold his coat wide along his sides under the arms. Then, he'd jump from the cliff and measure how far the wind carried him forward. I think Isaac learned more about gravity and momentum from this than from the falling apple!!
Dr. ELYAS FRAENKEL ISAACS, Ph.D.
Watch out guys, we got a badass over here!
@TehPhysicalist "It is then hypothesized that if nucleic acids can arise by themselves in nature, they must arise if the conditions for arising are met"
This is called circular reasoning. It is to abroad and can even hold true to intelligent design. Your trying to lecture me about a lack of understanding yet you gave the Laplace Napoleon story that is considered by most historians to fall under the category of legend which is based on an unsourced account by R. Ball in 1908.
@benthemiester (cont) that is a certain type of crystal which can reproduce itself. We now know that this is a ribotic nucleic acid, in our case specifically one of with one oxygen atom less, namely DNA. Everything in known biology is a description of this molecule undergoing physical interactions with other atoms and particles.
From the evolutionary view, i.e. the proteomic and genetic view, everything about the phenomenon of life itself is explainable by what DNA does. (cont)
Neil nailed it.
Ike. He's my man!
Curiosity is the key 🗝️
Does anyone here know the video where Neil Degrasse Tyson is talking about Isaac Newton I believe and he quotes Isaac Newton talking about how it was not necessary to invoke a God for the universe to exist. Or do you know the scientist who said that and give a website where I can find said quote. Thank you for your time this has been Anna Alana, stay awesome Gotham.
That's Neil Tysons lecture on Intelligent design. I believe it was Leplace responding to Napoleon.. when asked where God played a role in the stability of the solar system.. Laplace replied "I have no need for that hypothesis"
+SelfAudioBook When God said "Let there be light.", 13.8 bil yrs ago(or 6000 yrs ago),
If no one was around, how do you know what God said?
Did God speak English?
What language did God speak?
Who was God talking to?
Did God not know voice does not travel in the space especially before the big bang?
How did God talk if God is immaterial and has no material mouth?
Does God like talking to himself?
How did God know what to say if God is immaterial and has no material brain to think and plan with?
Did God create light from nothing or did God pull something from his sleeve to create light?
+SelfAudioBook Newton was pretty much forced to be religious, remember that he lived in a time where if you lived in europe and you weren't chatolic, you'd be tortured and killed, so I call for doubt about him being very religious.
***** again, he might have claimed to be a religious man, but only to avoid persecution, like many other people in that time did.
Jorge Corea Actually bro basically everyone before Darwin was religious.. even the smartest people.
Newton was looked at for some time as a bit of an odd ball by the English scientific community but finally published "Philosophia Naturalis, Principia Mathematica" to acclaim, became England's Exchequer of the Currency and eventually became head of the Royal Academy of Sciences for a number of years. Thereso is Isaac Newton better remembered as "the inventor of the calculus".
However, to the mathematical community and specialist audience, Gottfried Leibnitz's achievements in mathematics . ...
I like your list. However, it was my understanding we were focusing on mathematics. You have mixed physicists, computational scientists, and philosophers. There is nothing wrong there except it confuses a presumed beginning direction to mathematics. I'd also go to Pythagorus, Philo, Bonfils, Fermat, Cauchy, Goldwasser, Brun, Euclid, Pappas, Taylor, and so on and on ...
2) The mathematician has a different view of reality from the physicist, one however that is instrumental to comprehend in order to be able to truly comprehend reality. He however is blinded by certainty whereas the physicist knows very well the naivety of merely precise mathematical reasoning. This experience IMO is fundamental to getting closer to “truth”; mathematicians can see the trees, but are not aware of the forest. Comp scientists are merely a type of applied scientific mathematicians.
@TehPhysicalist cont..... This implies a fine tuner and gives evidence of, as in the worlds of Fred Hoyle, for some kind of "supper intellect" There is an article in the Journal Life entitled, "Is Life Unique?" This article challenges the notion that physics and chemistry alone can account much of this, including life, thought, etc.
Think I'd rather meet da Vinci. He may not have been as smart as Newton, but he was much nicer.
I was focusing more on mathematicians/physicists that were essential to furthering the understanding of fundamental physical theory and so all of science, Newton of course being the prime example. Without analytic mathematization in the way that Newton applied it there is no physics and therefore no respectable natural science. I have a saying that all physicists are born mathematicians. I believe we physicists learn to forsake pure mathematics the moment we are partially hit by reality. (cont)
and science supported by mathematics both old and new also moves along into their own futures.
ELYAS FRAENKEL ISAACS
@ElyasFraenkelIsaacs To make this point clearer I suggest you watch 'The Relation of Mathematics to Physics': /watch?v=kd0xTfdt6qw
Today we have both computer scientists and physicists contributing to 'pure' mathematics. My point is that really great mathematicians like Gauss and Von Neumann tend to be at least 'okay' physicists and really great physicists like Newton and Feynman tend to be at least 'okay' mathematicians; mathematical physicists like Penrose and Witten approach ideality.
@TehPhysicali What does biology or particle physics have to do with the subject?
Do u think theses subjects disprove intelligent design? If anything what we now know concerning the fine tuning of the cosmos & the exponential probability factors involved have caused even atheist like R. Penrose to state that the universe could not have come about by chance. In biology ID theory caused even the late great Anthony Flew to finally renounce atheism after he came to understand the factors involved.
I don’t know any atheists who believe the universe is a design. The universe has evolved over billions of years as a result of the interactions of energy and matter
I've taught and tutored biology majors and biologists. And on the whole as a class they avoid all but the most simple maths. As the "old wives tale" goes, biologists talk to organic chemists who talk to regular chemists who talk to physicists who talk to applied mathematicians who talk to research mathematicians who talk to the Lord or Mother Nature or both.
I really am only just adding to the list. How many mathematicians whether related to physics or other branches of scientific endeavor or not have increased our understanding and wisdom about life. A very few are given here. Somewhere was a comment about Einstein thus the comment on LaPlace and the transform, that is all. So, what's new with you??
3) The way I am saying this here gives some negative connotation to the viewpoint of the mathematician, which I believe is warranted. Once a physicist decides to fully and truly start thinking like a pure mathematician is when they have fallen off the deep end. It is a deep well from where it seems only few are able to return. The field of mathematical physics seems to be a cesspool for those who choose to trade in scientific integrity for mathematical rigor and therefore faulty reasoning.
I beg your pardon, Neil de Grasse Tyson. I am a lineal descendant of the English Royal House of York. We encouraged Isaac Newtons' collaborations with Edmund Halley. . ... And, we paid for that book!! You're welcome!!
Elyas Fraenkel Isaacs
@TehPhysicalist "You cannot by a priori reasoning alone decide that the theory is false, moreover one cannot even decide what an experiment can or cannot decide, only experiment can decide that"
I wasn't trying to, in fact I challenge you to show me the experiment that confirms your hypothesis. Please dont give me (just because we cant do it doesn't mean its not possible). I can use the same argument about flying elephants on Mars.
of abstraction do eventually attach to real life concepts or ideas. A good example going right back to Einstein and relativity is that until Einstein's physics promoted it LaPlace's Transform was mostly just an interestihg math equation. You posit the need for realtiy based math. Why I ask?? Why do clumping while compiling the primes or the decimal expansion of PI need explaining? We may one day attach reality. But why apriori must we have that??
Excuse me, but who are you talking to?
And Leonardo Da Vinci was slightly ahead of Isaac. He could also write music, paint eternal artistry as well as do magnificent science and remarkable inventions.
Newton stands on the shoulders of Da Vinci and Einstein
I. Of course, pure math almost always turns out to be useful. I myself simply see pure math as wonders undreamt of, concepts unrealized in their utility, whether possibly, actually or potentially real, objectively and/or subjectively true. As for why, the answer is simple, namely in order to truly understand things leading to an overall intellectual progression. Take for example the argument Feynman gives here about the Mayan astronomer: /watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k
Analogously, (cont)
@benthemiester (cont) In short to hold onto such a view requires a willful disregard of the evidence and a flight from self knowledge.
Finally, as you will probably bring it up I will directly highlight the 'non-chemical biological' elephant in the room: consciousness. To that end I quote that great man, Erwin Schrödinger: "The obvious inability of present-day physics and chemistry to account for such events is no reason at all for doubting that they can be accounted for by those sciences."
@ElyasFraenkelIsaacs [cont] Sure, mathematicians occasionally help us but they are not necessary because physicists are themselves a certain 'type' of mathematician. The use of mathematics paired with the scientific method is what makes our subject 'physics' and not merely 'natural philosophy', as it was prior to Isaac Newton and his invention of calculus to describe nature what led him to discover and demonstrate the existence of physical laws.
As for Newton vs Leibniz: xkcd.com/626/
Dude if you wanted to learn about the incredible mysteries of the universe and NO ONE ELSE questioned them, you'd question it. Scientists asks questions, even if its a medium like light that you've seen every day of your life since you could see. That's what scientists do, and when you're as curious and as persistent as Newton, you can do stuff that's kinda weird.
That's what happens.
would smarts like newton's transcend time? if he was alive today would he be as great?
I am tempted to say Cauche, Leibiniz and Euler can compete with or even out rank newton in intelligence.
@TehPhysicalist well, both are awesome, now that you asked, but I was referring to Neil Tyson (of course I heard about Mr Newton before, don't be silly, the inventor of pet doors) ;P
@benthemiester Moreover all experiments done at the time did not disprove it, until centuries later and even then it was more an expansion than a refutation. The fact that you are even asking 'what does biology or particle physics have to do with it?' betrays your understanding of the interconnection of all these subjects. Proteomicochemical biology is a prediction of statistical mechanics in a gravitational 'sweet spot' near certain types of stars. You cannot have the one without the other.
@TehPhysicalist Yes I'm familiar with this myth. The story goes that Pierre-Simon Laplace was able to figure out this anomaly. Therefore Newton was sone how full of it. The problem with this story that Tyson often repeats is that it is simply not true. Laplace was never able to solve this mystery. Again Newton never said that we should give up. He only said that he had come to the end of trying to figur this out mathematically. Newton gave us Newtonian physics and a universal law of gravity.
spooky ways
@benthemiester Newton's own knowledge was however incomplete which lead to some faulty hypothesis, like the instantaneous forces, the existence of absolute inertial frames and the argument of design. At the time however it was impossible not to conclude these things: it would've been irrational not to conclude these things were true. But, as is always in physics, the devil is in the details. Only after Newton's method was known could the hypothesis be experimented upon and thus answered.
lol we got a bad ass over there
@TehPhysicalist "Ribotic nucleic acid is a valid synonym; translation of trivial chemical terminology into English is arbitrarily simplifiable in this manner."
Please cite a biology dictionary that defines ribotic acid as you insist it does, a simple way is to call it DNA. Or again if you means ribonucleic acid then the term would be RNA.
I dont know where you got this mumbo jumbo about epigenetics and I'm not even sure I want to know man.
were comparable indeed to Newton's. [And as an aside, Leibnitz had a great head of thick, wavy black hair.]
IX. Only physical reasoning paired with experiment is capable of expounding these a posteriori recognized but a priori real and necessary truths. As far as I am aware, there really is no field of study that reasons in this manner save for physics, not even the mathematicians as explained here: /watch?v=YaUlqXRPMmY
All of (natural) science is physical science, there is no other understanding system upon to base. I will end however on this note regarding our differing views: /watch?v=obCjODeoLVw
2:49😂😂👌
I have to concur. Had Newton led a normal life just like any other person, he wouldn't have discovered the calculus, he would not have published the Principia, and he would not have dabbled in alchemy for weeks and months on end.
Newton, indeed, had many personal oddities. He was a complete loner, he hated the give and take of any scientific discussion, he was wholly aloof from women, and he was very introverted.
You really have to be different from your peers if you wanna be like Newton.
..... then there is also Russell, Pascal, Aristotle, Zermelo, Fraenkel, Lie, Galois, Abel, Dedekind, Chebyshev, Kurtzweil, Jaquet, Goldfeld, Birman, Quintas, Kennedy, Gagliardi, Diophantus, Greene, Orshansky, as you said ... too much!!
1.Newton
2. Maxwell
3. Faraday
@benthemiester
Actually if you want to discuss anymore biology with myself, I suggest you first watch this. It is in total about an hour long and says pretty much everything necessary for you to know before you can actually understand what I have been trying to tell you.
/watch?v=QnQe0xW_JY4&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=SP3EED4C1D684D3ADF
(copy and paste it after ''youtube.com")
@benthemiester I apologize, that was specifically not my intention. I am merely trying to convey how extremely difficult the idea is to explain even to scientists who are not somewhat specialized in all the major fields.
Schrödinger's cat is nonsense. I have no interest in discussing how it is drivel, it is simply too arbitrary of a subject filled with misapprehension by those (physicists) who know too little about the other sciences and therefore not enough physics to see through it. Regards.
@ElyasFraenkelIsaacs As for general relativity, the mathematics required could have easily been invented by a physicist. Luckily, it was already invented by mathematicians, greatly helping us in our continued interrogation of Nature. This is because alot of mathematics is really generalized physics, eg. geometry and calculus. Mathematics is not physics and physics is not mathematics, the one helps the other. They are both magnificent subjects but they are not identical, nor will they ever be.
what a mind