|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
who is great? albert .e. or newton
since my childhood i have been very insterested in biography of great scientists.first i heard of einstien , no doubt of his brilliance..but later on i got to know about newton.who is no less....
now its just that i want to compare...but there is a promblem...i dont know in what way to compare?
now its just that i want to compare...but there is a promblem...i dont know in what way to compare?
I'll pick Albert (as you refer to him) for being the greater.
The reason for this is that while Newton worked with things that could be experimentally proven with relative ease, and all of which I can understand, Albert worked with many things that cannot be proven easily, some of which I still can't quite wrap my mind around, such as why 3/4 of the speed of light + 3/4 of the speed of light = the speed of light.
The reason for this is that while Newton worked with things that could be experimentally proven with relative ease, and all of which I can understand, Albert worked with many things that cannot be proven easily, some of which I still can't quite wrap my mind around, such as why 3/4 of the speed of light + 3/4 of the speed of light = the speed of light.
I personally think that Newton is much more important and influential. This guy was absolutely amazing. He was able to develop the fundamental mechanics for physics. Stuff like kinematics and basic natural laws. He laos was able to develop calculus. His, and Leibnitz's work were the backbone for calculus today. They pretty much developed integrals and derivatives.
I pick up albert!
Newton may have done great things but Albert had E=MC^2 to his credit!
Newton may have done great things but Albert had E=MC^2 to his credit!
i hate albert. due to his BOMB the world is facing more trouble today
prefer newton.
prefer newton.
In my view Newton ismore important than Abert, because if Newton didnt find the his findings Albaert cudnt have come up with the theory of relativiyt. sO IT MEANS Albert can be known as a student of newton. So newton is important. And also newton's findinf help us in our daily lifes even in poor peaoples daily lifes, but Albert's finding only help big countries and it leads to chaos among humans sometimes. So I will say that Newton is more important than Albert.
I think it's very hard to compare and say who is greater. Newton made groundwork which is important in everyday physics while Einstein was changing the way we percieve the world. I think both is equally important.
I believe Albert Einstein had the greater mind. Newton, though brilliant, mostly described mathematically common physical phenomena and applied them generally. Don't get me wrong, this took incredible insight, especially with regards to gravity and the creation of the calculus, tho Leibnitz might disagree.
Einstein, on the other hand re-invented the concept of space, time, and matter and energy. None of his ideas are intuitive compared to Newton, yet Einstein's theories have proven to be more accurate to as many decimal places as modern instruments can detect, where Newton breaks down. If the time between Newton and Einstein's birth is an indacation, we may not have another truly great mind until the 23rd century. Certainly nobody is in contention right now. String theorists, please put down your torches and pitch-forks.
Einstein, on the other hand re-invented the concept of space, time, and matter and energy. None of his ideas are intuitive compared to Newton, yet Einstein's theories have proven to be more accurate to as many decimal places as modern instruments can detect, where Newton breaks down. If the time between Newton and Einstein's birth is an indacation, we may not have another truly great mind until the 23rd century. Certainly nobody is in contention right now. String theorists, please put down your torches and pitch-forks.
Einstein... Newton wasn't unique.... Lebonitz discovered most of the same stuff around the same time, independently.
Newton, no contest.
Einstein is certainly more famous, but it's gotta be Newton
Einstein is certainly more famous, but it's gotta be Newton
newton, definitely... no matter which subject i study, i read about this guyz contribution to the subject... he has done something in each and every field...
| suntzu3500 wrote: |
| Einstein... Newton wasn't unique.... Lebonitz discovered most of the same stuff around the same time, independently. |
(Look up Henri Poincaré. Einstein was also not entirely "unique".)
| pashmina wrote: |
| i hate albert. due to his BOMB the world is facing more trouble today
prefer newton. |
Two things:
1. It was not his bomb. And scientists can't do anything when the governments use their inventions to kill people. Einstein tried to, but he failed.
2. From the two, Newton took part directly in killing people. He worked for the royal treasury and some counterfeiters were hanged based on his sentences.
I believe that both of them significantly contributed to the science as of today. I would appreciate a "Both of them" option...
Albert, mostly because we can use his theories in more productive ways to describe our universe, but this could not be done without the help of Newtons laws, ya that both option would of been nice
well, not much to choose between them!!!
newton certainly did the groundwork, but without einstein, it would have been VERY difficult for us to research on any field of physics!!!
so, albert einstein for me!
newton certainly did the groundwork, but without einstein, it would have been VERY difficult for us to research on any field of physics!!!
so, albert einstein for me!
I think Newton. I am no fan of Einstein. If you like biographies, like me, then you'll know the guy wasn't exactly the world's best family man. Newton's development of calculus and it's application to physical systems is still basically learn in high schools today. Einstein did (obviously) do some amazing work, with some amazing insights. But it's wrong to credit him with everything. For example, in quantum mechanics look at what the work of Bohr, Schoedinger, or Heisenberg - or more recently that of Von Neumann, Bell or even Shor. None of them was working in a vaccuum, and it's wrong to credit them with everything.
Last edited by nopaniers on Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:26 am; edited 1 time in total
Last edited by nopaniers on Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:26 am; edited 1 time in total
Albert, definitely. Overall, I think he just contributed more difficult concepts than Newton.
If we look at the complexity of their theories I would pick Einstein's. The idea of a relative time is overwhelming. Energy and mass were also related. A small quantity of mass can produce a lot of energy.
Newton's laws were a lot simpler for a nowadays perspective. But let's not forget that he was a pioneer.
Simple things are difficult till they are discovered. Newton's time is much more obscure than Einstein's. Einstein made brilliant discoveries but also wasn't able to keep up with the quantum age.
I will not compare them based on their strange personalities and personal life. Yes, both were strange people that could see beyond their time.
So, gold scientific medals for both.
Newton's laws were a lot simpler for a nowadays perspective. But let's not forget that he was a pioneer.
Simple things are difficult till they are discovered. Newton's time is much more obscure than Einstein's. Einstein made brilliant discoveries but also wasn't able to keep up with the quantum age.
I will not compare them based on their strange personalities and personal life. Yes, both were strange people that could see beyond their time.
So, gold scientific medals for both.
| Nyizsa wrote: |
|
I believe that both of them significantly contributed to the science as of today. I would appreciate a "Both of them" option... |
Yeah, that would be great, except that it throws away any chances of making sense:
'Which one is better? Both of them.'
As most have said both have made a lot of good things but I must say that I like Einstein a bit more, his theory about gravitation may not have been possible without newtons but einsteins theory is.. fascinating, it's something worth to read about 
Well, it's hard to say. But, like the others who posted before me, I'd have to say both of them. Newton basically formed the base of physics and Einstein changed the way we percieve the world. In my opinion, Newton did more work than Einstein (Principia, Calculus, etc.), but then again, Einstein did more difficult stuff. But, if Newton was born later on, after someone else had done Newton's work, then he could have done what Einstein would have done. These two people had great minds, each making major contributions to physics.
I picked Newton because Albert had a few helping hands... they were not all of his own. I actually would have picked DaVInci if it were an option.
Albert, recall... worked in a patent office.... looking over designs and ideas in his free time... after this he was a teacher and claiming the efforts of his students. It is hard to think of him as better than Newton.
Also it is a different time.. how can you compare someone in apple falling off trees days vs atomic bomb days. It is not relevant comparison.
I have more capability and knowledge than Newton just because of the technologies invented over the years...
So I guess, in closing, it doesnt really matter (matter... LOL) because we are not comparing... well... apples to apples
Albert, recall... worked in a patent office.... looking over designs and ideas in his free time... after this he was a teacher and claiming the efforts of his students. It is hard to think of him as better than Newton.
Also it is a different time.. how can you compare someone in apple falling off trees days vs atomic bomb days. It is not relevant comparison.
I have more capability and knowledge than Newton just because of the technologies invented over the years...
So I guess, in closing, it doesnt really matter (matter... LOL) because we are not comparing... well... apples to apples
Newton is the greater. He came up with the laws of motion, etc. (albeit from observable experimentation), which was and is still is part of the foundation of modern-day physics.
Einstein, on the other hand, already had the accumulated knowledge of the past centuries to build upon. However, I do not claim his accomplishments were not great or had lesser merit than Newton's in his day.
Einstein, on the other hand, already had the accumulated knowledge of the past centuries to build upon. However, I do not claim his accomplishments were not great or had lesser merit than Newton's in his day.
I choose Albert Einstein rather than Newton not because of the merit of their works (that could be discussed endlessly) but because of what I know from their personalities.
And on this point, in my opinion, Albert look much much better than Newton.
And on this point, in my opinion, Albert look much much better than Newton.
| einstein wrote: |
| well, not much to choose between them!!!
newton certainly did the groundwork, but without einstein, it would have been VERY difficult for us to research on any field of physics!!! so, albert einstein for me! |
Yes, but aren't you sort of biased, einstein?
It's tempting to say Einstein because his theories were such a break from what went before - but then perhaps we don't find Newton's so amazing because we are tought his theories first. Gravity must have seemed like pretty wicked theory to a layman in Newtons time. Also Einstein was in on the start of quantum physics too - before it all got a bit much for him and gravitational lenses are cool - nuff said, another vote for Einstein, spam.
and gravitational lenses are cool - nuff said, another vote for Einstein, spam.
Well i think Newton was more skilled with practical physics whereas Einstein based his ideas on theories.
Newton built the foundation upon which all modern engineers and other "physical" sciences rely upon, his mechanics and calculus. But even Newton himself said, “If I have seen farther than others it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.” The argument is nullified that Einstein < Newton just because Newton came before him.
Think about it this way, you predict something is right before it is even tested. You would dare put yourself out there on an idea that can not be proved or disproved either way at the time. But then when it is possible to test it, you are right. That takes revolutionary thinking.
| Quote: |
| Well i think Newton was more skilled with practical physics whereas Einstein based his ideas on theories. |
Think about it this way, you predict something is right before it is even tested. You would dare put yourself out there on an idea that can not be proved or disproved either way at the time. But then when it is possible to test it, you are right. That takes revolutionary thinking.
i think newtown is good
why chose Newton when u can choose Einstein?..haha..Newton is just too good to be true if compared to Einstein
I vote Darwin! Show some love for the biologists!
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
| I vote Darwin! Show some love for the biologists! |
(Technically, Darwin was a zoologist/botanist, not a biologist. He probably wouldn't know a cell or a protein if one bit him in the ass.)
Well, I don't think I'm alone in considering Darwin a biologist! But it's semantics, really.
My point is: you physicists and mathematicians get all the credit! Sure, some cell and molecular biology researchers get recognized, but I don't think a career in ecology is exactly going to put me on the Nobel Prize trajectory! Darwin is probably the first and last evolutionary biologist who will get hailed as one of the world's great geniouses
My point is: you physicists and mathematicians get all the credit! Sure, some cell and molecular biology researchers get recognized, but I don't think a career in ecology is exactly going to put me on the Nobel Prize trajectory! Darwin is probably the first and last evolutionary biologist who will get hailed as one of the world's great geniouses
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
| Well, I don't think I'm alone in considering Darwin a biologist! But it's semantics, really.
My point is: you physicists and mathematicians get all the credit! Sure, some cell and molecular biology researchers get recognized, but I don't think a career in ecology is exactly going to put me on the Nobel Prize trajectory! Darwin is probably the first and last evolutionary biologist who will get hailed as one of the world's great geniouses |
Well the reason we get all the credit is because we're so much smarter than you biologists. i should have thought that was obvious. (heh)
But if you really want to nominate a true, red-blodded biologist, i'd recommend Francis Crick above Darwin.
And if you're talking about evolutionary biologists, i wouldn't be so quick to say Darwin was the last of the line. Let's not forget Dawkins!
 |