Yes. And mathematics. And a key figure in the scientific revolution. Probably also one of the most intelligent people ever.
this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2025
-1 points (48.5% liked)
No Stupid Questions
36661 readers
625 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I firmly believe Newton would have gotten to relativity before Einstien if he were born at the same time.
Possible. But then we'd need somebody else to develop calculus and write a Principia Mathematica and lay the groundworks for the age of enlightenment.
But then we'd need somebody else to develop calculus
Poor, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz...
Heheh, valid objection. Guess Newton wasn't the only smart person in history 😆 And drama has always been part of human history... But we still hear those names over 300 years later. Along with a lot of other names of people whose results are taught in university today. But yeah, that hypothetical situation (Newton's achievements in mathematics being replaced by Leibnitz) would make a good Dr. Who episode.
A lot of what Newton used in Principia was already more or less in the air, it was just a matter of someone picking up the pieces and seeing the big pictures. It couldn't have been more than a few decades at most until someone found out if it hadn't been Newton.
Same could be said about Einstein
Yes.
Much of the Special Relativity value was on Lorenz mechanics anyway.
And General Relativity, the Photoelectric Effect explanation, and his explanation for the Brownian movement all needed a great deal of anti-establishment thinking... honestly, I have no idea how much Newton had of that.
General Relativity needed lots and lots of the math that has been developed after Newton, even shortly before Einstein (and also he himself has developed some of it).
I firmly believe Newton would have gotten to relativity before Einstien if he were born at the same time.
But it wasn't the end results and complex formulas of Einstein's theory that showed the flaws and gaps in Newton's mechanics.
It was the basic questions and thought experiments in Einstein's first script. About basic geometry, length and width. The flow of time, the speed of a signal. Concurrency.
It should have been possible to think these thoughts at Newton's time.
No it shouldn't? Without Mercury's orbit having been noticed, there was no need yet to question Newton's theory, they simply worked as far as anyone could see; so why complicate it? And without the Lorentz transformation, the math Einstein used wasn't there. And without Fizeau's experiment, the fact that the speed of light is the same in every frame wasn't known, and that's a huge part of the theory. And if he had intuited it somehow, the Maxwell's equations were even there either. Special relativity is at it's core a way reconcile Maxwell's equations with the core tenants of Newton's theory. There was no way special relativity could've been found even half a century earlier, let alone over two centuries...
Mercury's orbit
I wasn't talking about Astronomy at all.
Lorentz transformation
That was needed only for the end results. Not in the introductory thoughts that I was talking about.
Fizeau's experiment, the fact that the speed of light is the same
Good point here. That was in fact one of the starting points for Einstein.
There was no way special relativity could've been found even half a century earlier
Again you are looking at the end results only, when the theory was complete.
Have you even read my comment?
Have you even read Einstein?
The thoughts experiment are no different from the maths and wouldn't have occurred in any context, or at least wouldn't have come close to yielding the same conclusions. The most famous one was Einstein imagining himself riding a beam of light iirc. As you say, he imagined time and space stretching. Why would someone have imagined that in the 1600s? What reason was there to think riding light was any different from riding a very fast stream on a boat? Who knew then that you couldn't just add the speed of lights to other speeds like you do in every galilean frame in Newtonian physics? You conceded that Fizeau's experiments were a starting point. These experiments would've never happened without the questions raised by the discrepancy between Newton and Maxwell's laws! And if they had, someone with no prior knowledge of Maxwell's laws wouldn't have had any interest or use for these results.
Thank you for answering at least one of my questions, the last one, in so many words.
EOD.
.... no?
if I have seen further [than others], it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.
The dude contributed greatly to physics, optics and mathematics.
He also tried to cure the plague with magic frog vomit.
physics jesus
Yes, he is still regarded as such. Nearly nobody is aware of how thoroughly his core statements in physics have been refuted since 1905.
His math holds water.
I think several other people have a better claim to that title, like Galileo Galilei and Roger Bacon. Bacon is one of the first to spell out the scientific method and Galilei... Well, you know what he did. I'd say Galileo is more Jesus-like because he was persecuted by the dominant church. And Galileo moved things a lot. Remember, Newton was born around the time Galileo died, he was born in a period of scientific upheaval. Galileo also introduced concepts that played a big role in Newtonian physics, like Galilean frames, the relativity of speeds, the idea that speed is conserved in the absence of a force...
You could argue there was also a slow acceleration of progress before Galileo 's time, and also that Copernicus is another good candidate for example, but if you really wanna emulate the Christ-like narrative, Galileo seems better. He's even named after a region where Jesus might've lived.
Did Jesus suck a lot of dick?