Talk:Isaac Newton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Isaac Newton article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Featured article star Isaac Newton is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 13, 2005.

Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] Comment 1

I like the revised intro that says Newton shares credit with Leibniz for creating calculus. The text I changed said that Newton invented it far before Leibniz, which is not true. Gregsinclair 15:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro quote

Hi, I changed the previous intro quote:

English poet Alexander Pope was moved by Newton's accomplishments to write the famous epitaph:
“ Nature and nature's laws lay hid in night;

God said "Let Newton be" and all was light.

 ”

To Don Juan apple quote (1821) using better format; I hope no one minds. I searched the quotation books for a while. --Sadi Carnot 16:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that either really improves the intro, and certainly not one which includes both 'apple' and 'gravitation'. What is is that you like about this particular quote?—eric 17:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The original quote expresses the revolutionary effect of Newton's scientific endeavours; the second is merely a pop cultural reference. The original is the best.--Jack Upland 08:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old Style date of death

Should not it be 20 March 1726 for old style date? A year was switched on March 25 then. As an example, see [1] (question "Handel: 1684 or 1685?") --Mgar 19:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The person commenting above seems to be right. All sources giving Newton's date of death according to the New Style state it as occurring on March 31, 1727 N.S. The Old Style calendar then used in England was 11 days behind the N.S., giving March 20 O.S. But the year didn't "catch up" to the N.S. until New Year's Day March 25, 1727 O.S. New Year's Eve was March 24, 1726 O.S. Four days prior to that was March 20, 1726 O.S. 24.159.60.119 04:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did he really do that?

In the opening section it suggests that Newton was able to derive Kepler's Laws from his theory of universal gravitation. My recollection is that he showed Kepler's laws, which are entirely empirically based being derived from careful observation, are consistent with his ToUG. In fact Newton used Kepler's laws to demonstrate a radial inverse square law form for an attractive force between Sun and planet described the motions of the planets reasonably well. To suggest Newton derived Kepler's laws puts the cart before the horse somewhat.Fizzackerly 15:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Good question -- because undergraduate classical mechanics texts usually derive Kepler's Laws from Newtonian conservation of angular momentum, I always assumed Newton did this himself after he deduced derived the inverse square law for planets from Kepler's observations, but this may have not been the case. LotR 16:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You say it yourself, Newton deduced the inverse square law from Kepler's observations, thus to suggest Newton derived Kepler's laws from his ToUG would simply amount to circular reasoning - right? In any case the article as it's written is a little misleading in that it suggests Newton derived Kepler's Laws, which he didn't, Kepler did that. Newton demonstrated consistency between KL and his ToUG.Fizzackerly 16:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep, makes sense. The distinction may seem subtle, but it gets at the heart of how the scientific method works. LotR 17:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Standing on the shoulders of giants"

Hello. I read (I believe it was in Simon Singh's book Big Bang) that this "shoulders of giants" remark was not made out of modesty but of cruelty, as the man to whom he was writing was a hunchback. Can anyone confirm this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.94.78.155 (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Never in my life, but it might be a good idea to look at the article Standing on the shoulders of giants. Borisblue 04:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
No, Hooke really was a hunch back and at the time Newton sent the letter to him was after the two of them had had a bitter dispute of Newton's book Optiks, which Hooke accused him of stealing from him. The two of them never got along and I was stunned that this was not included anywhere in the article. Hooke actually opposed Newton's inclusion into the Royal Society.(Telindale 03:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC))
Agreed. I thought that this was common knowledge. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hooke's rivalry with Newton is common knowledge, (and is mentioned in the article), but the assertion that the "standing on the shoulders of giants" quote was meant as an insult is Original Research, unless someone comes up with a source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Borisblue (talk • contribs) 07:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
I'm a bit new here, and I'm not clear on all policy, but I recently attended a lecture by Shelly Glashow entitled "The Errors and Animadversions of Sir Isaac Newton" in which he indicated that someone (unfortunately, I cannot remember who) wrote that Newton probably meant that he would stand on Hooke's shoulders in order "to step on his head." Just something to take into consideration I suppose. Mickster810 18:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hmm

Can someone add the fact about issac from 64 (number)? I have got notime!!!! --GravityTalk 14:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no mention of him there. JackofOz 05:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
=P Its here. 2060. --GravityTalk 01:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Isaac Newton

Given that most of the readers are not british, and hence do not have to call other people's kings and queens "her majesty", it seems inapropriate to start this entry with "Sir Isaac Newton". I just do not see why this wikipedia entry has to follow the formalities of a cast society...

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.198.157.118 (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

It's his title. You wouldn't go up to the Queen of England and say, "Hey Elizabeth." It's his title; you would address him and give him his proper respect (if he were still alive). Soulwar 04:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] His Personal Life

This article doesn't have a "Personal Life" section. I think the lack of one during his life is definitely an interesting topic. I recently came across this article from The Straight Dope that should be mentioned[2]. --RPaleja 01:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have heard that Newton died a virgin, but where is this corroborated? (69.76.189.247 19:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Small grammar error

The opening sentence:

Sir Isaac Newton, (4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727) [ OS: 25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727][1] was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, and alchemist, regarded by many as the greatest figure in the history of science.

This says that he was regarded as the greatest in his lifetime, while I think the intended meaning is that he is currently regarded as the greatest.

Here's a simple correction:

Sir Isaac Newton (4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727) [ OS: 25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727][1] was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, and alchemist, and is regarded by many as the greatest figure in the history of science.

Or it could be split into two sentences. Note the dropped comma after his name. I would change it myself but I can't edit this article.24.74.1.139 00:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About "the gratest figure in the history of science"

In a servy that been done outside the U.K Einstein was chosen as the greatest scientict of all time . So, it is preety natural that British peopole will consider Newton , which was British , to be the Greatest -but what is the objective value of such a statement when it cites as a reference the survy that been done by the Royal Society , inside the UK -while only part (acctually one third) of the scientict that been asked to answer to this question answerd it...it is flawd from the mhetodological aspect...might be that you should change it.--Gilisa 17:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/s/a/Talk%7EIsaac_Newton_dd44.html"