Talk:Isaac Newton/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Father of mothers. :)

Physics creation and development; Newton should be given credit. Newton should be called "Father of Physics" because of his work in Physics especially planetary theories and experiments. Ernest Rutherford, a noted and prominent nuclear physicist, is known to be "Father of Nuclear Physics". How come Newton doesn't recognized as "father of Physics"?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.138.179 (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That's good to know. But aint no one cares about u being Descendant of Newton! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.138.179 (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"Aint no one cares" would mean "everyone cares." The more you know. 68.62.251.202 (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

How can it be? Newton remained a virgin throughout his life. Maybe you were related to Newton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.183.240.185 (talk) 06:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, Newton didn't get married? Wow..May be then you are related to Newton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.134.174 (talk) 07:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

--85.164.222.45 (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

150.135.210.66 (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC) Well, I thought I might humbly add that Galileo is already known by that epithet (ie "Father of Modern Physics") : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei. Physics can't have two fathers, at least not in any state other than Massachusetts.

Einstein vs. Newton?! Come on!

I really think the Royal Society poll is an irrelevant and petty thing to have in this article, especially in the intro section.

1. Einstein was born hundreds of years after Newton. Two scientists separated by that much time are surely uncomparable, for several reasons- the most important being that if a hypothetical poll is conducted 100 years after a dicovery, it's bound to judge the discovery less influential to science than a poll conducted 500 years after the same discovery. It's no reflection on the actual work done, it's just the amount of time that it's had to sink in. For example Newton's classical mechanics are of course going to be at an advantage to Special Relativity in a society that's only been space-faring for less than 50 years.

2. The Royal Society and 1000 members of the British public is a pretty poor representation of the global scientific community.

3. Surely it's resonable to say that this sample will be gunning for the Brit? What with many RS scientists Cambridge alumni?

4. In the article cited it is even admitted by Lord May of the Royal Society: "Many would say that comparing Newton and Einstein is like comparing apples and oranges, but what really matters is that people are appreciating the huge amount that both these physicists achieved, and that their impact on the world stretched far beyond the laboratory and the equation." -In other words, don't worry about the poll, this is good because it's bigging up science to the masses.

Is there really any reason to have this comparison in here? Autonova (talk) 11:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Autonova misses the point: the article reports a fact about the Royal Society that deals with Newton. He thinks the many scientists there are not good enough to make that call, but that is surely an uncalled for judgment. Rjensen (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Autonova, it's irrelevant and petty. Would make more sense to simply say that he's one of the most influential scientists of all time.
—Apis (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"Newton was deemed much more influential than Albert Einstein". By what criteria is this decided? Torricelli01 (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Einstein's contribution isn't widely used outside nuclear physics. Newton's is so widespread that you don't notice it. It permeates everyday life, from the car that you may drive, to the house that you live in. Newton's law govern just about everything mechanical and everything that moves. That's why his effect is vastly greater then Einstein's. To a great extent the modern word was built (literally) using the work of Newton. Newton's work helped usher in the Industrial Revolution which is the reason that most of you people reading this are no longer rural peasants living in squalor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.252.131 (talk) 11:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough the guy who started this thread is British.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. The entry is gay and should be removed. Why people compared him with Einstein I do not know. The importance of Einstein's contributions are still too uncertain to be compared with such an universal genius such as Newton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.234.222.33 (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the comparison of "importance" and relevance. BOTH were leaders in their fields and their works used extensively in current technologies. As such, BOTH were of equal importance to science.Wzrd1 (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Equations

The famous F=ma equation does not appear in Newton's works. He never used an equation. Newton expressed his mathematics in ratios and proportions.Lestrade (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Though one could not formulate a mathematical theory without using equations! Torricelli01 (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

One can and did. There are no equations per se in the Principia, try reading it! PaddyLeahy (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

While it is true that Newton avoided using the Calculus in his Principia, because of its novelty and uncertain status (especially regarding notation), and structured his argument using geometrical and other Renaissance mathematical methods, if you read the Laws in the Principia, the equations are actually stated in ordinary English (actually Latin). F=ma is, in any case, not how Newton understood the law; he actually stated it as (in modern notation) F ~ dp/dt. That in itself was one of his major contributions to the understanding of inertia. ("p" above signifies momentum ["change of motion"]). 66.108.147.72 (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Allen Roth

This is absolutely false. In his Principia, Newton used only proportions of ratios. He did not ever use anything that resembled an equation.Lestrade (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

I don't know if your comment above was directed toward what I said but, if it was, Lestrade, you are misreading me. I specifically said "the equations are actually stated in ordinary English," which means there is no mathematical notation (like the "equal" sign) used. You seem to be conflating "equation" as a mathematical equality with a statement in English regarding the relations between certain quantities. Just look at the Laws as given in the Principia. And do go straight to the text, since the Wiki article on Newton's Laws is so poorly written that not once does it quote the Laws in Newton's own words, but yet is replete with equations and equations; someone really ought to do a major revision of that article; it is not only misleading, but sloppily reasoned and structured. The meaning of the very symbol "~" which I used above, is "proportional to." Newton wrote (if my memory is correct), "the quantity of motion [rate of change of momentum, i.e. "p") is proportional to the motive force impressed." That is definitely an equation, albeit stated in ordinary language. Your comment above, "F=ma" does not appear in Newton's works," which is mentioned by many writers, refers not to an equation F=ma, but rather to the fact that Newton stated that equation not with the concepts "mass" and "acceleration," but rather as the "rate of change of momentum is proportional to..." This is very significant in the development of scientific ideas, since it demonstrates that the fundamental concepts with which Newton was dealing were not mass and acceleration, but rather momentum or more, exactly, the instantaneous time-rate of change (i.e. the time-derivative) of momentum, conservation of momentum having previously been discovered by Descartes. Torricelli's comment above is incorrect; one can definitely formulate a mathematical theory without using "equations," i.e. in ordinary language, as long as the statements deal with relations between quantities--that is, as quantifiable (i.e. countable) entities. The essence of mathematics--and of the Scientific Revolution which Galileo initiated--was that, unlike, say, Aristotle's physics, the new science dealt only with numerical, measurable, relations between things. 207.237.139.174 (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Allen Roth

Newton & conservation laws

The main article has been stating that Newton "enunciated the conservation principles of momentum and angular momentum." This is unsourced, and is transferred here for any discussion needed. As to angular momentum, Newton certainly dealt with a related quantity "areal velocity" for an orbiting body (which in modern terms is quantitatively equal to angular momentum per unit mass scaled by a factor 1/2), but there is scholarly opinion that he did not fully develop or use the concept of angular momentum. (An example reference is C Truesdell, in "Essays in the History of Mechanics", 1968, in the chapter "Whence the law of the moment of momentum?") There have been examples of things attributed to Newton that he did not do, as well as examples of attributing credit elsewhere for things that properly do belong to Newton (see e.g. [1]): and this may be another of them. Terry0051 (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as the law of conservation of momentum is concerned, the law, with exactly the same meaning, was formulated previously, by Descartes, in his Principles of Philosophy. If this article says otherwise, it should be corrected. 207.237.139.174 (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Allen Roth

Unfounded information--- Newton as highly religious---

"Newton was also highly religious, though an unorthodox Christian, writing more on Biblical hermeneutics and occult studies than the natural science for which he is remembered today." Contents [hide]

Newton may have been a mystic and occultist, but this in no way implies religious as readersmight think of it today. Also this line does not have a citing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.73.176 (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There's an extreme amount of primary sources that attest to the fact that Isaac Newton was highly religious. You betray your ignorance and the ignorance of Wikipedia by pretending the debate is over...just like MMGW right leftists?

This little excerpt from the Wikipedia page "Isaac Newton's religious views": "While Newton's fame came from his work in the field of science, his work on Biblical hermeneutics was the work he most loved." and this "Well before 1675, Newton had become an Arian in the original sense of the term." That is, Newton did not believe that Jesus was God. Westfall adds, his views "remained unaltered until his death."[1] "Arianism" was an ancient Christian heresy, and was no longer an organized religion with well-established doctrines. Newton kept it secret because heresy would lead to termination of his appointments at Cambridge University and the Mint."

So what might readers think today? I think believing in Arian Christianity and hiding it from your Orthodox peers and bosses until your death is sufficient for "having been religious" the way that readers (including me) think of it today! Though some people, usually anti-religionists, try to define the word religion extremely narrowly it actually encompasses everything from paganism, to tribalism, to Deism, to Catholicism, to Judaism, to Mormonism, to Wicca, to environmentalism!

His religious status should be listed as "Arian Christianity". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.159.228 (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please explain to me how someone who is required to keep his views on religion a secret for fear of professional termination (or worse) but "..did not believe that Jesus was God", and advocated a position which was "no longer an organized religion" can be described as "highly religious" outside of a satirical setting for a modern day audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanman000 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Leibniz vs. Newton

In 1666, Newton understood the methods of fluxions and in 1668 his method of integration by infinite series was well known to other mathematicians. Newton explained his discoveries to Leibniz and in 1684 Leibniz published a paper on calculus. Later in the 1690s, followers of Newton announced that Newton's idea on methods of fluxions came before Leibniz, while supporters of Leibniz argued that Leibniz shared the differential method to Newton. The problem with this argument is that Leibniz never claimed this. The supporters of Newton claimed that Leibniz looked upon Newton's papers while visiting London in 1676. However, Leibniz did not notice the methods of fluxions. Leibniz then began to attack Newton regarding his theory of gravitation as well as what Newton thought about creation and God. The dispute did not end until Leibniz died in 1716. Reception of Newtonian research and science had been delayed due to the horrible allegations against Newton for a hundred years.

MTH314ccc (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems unfortunate that the whole conflict between Newton and Leibniz ever took place. While Newton invented Calculus first, Leibniz's methods allowed Europe to advance mathematically; I'm speaking of the notation dx/dy to denote the derivative. The use of differentials allows much more coverage as far as vector calculus goes, but Newton's notation did not allow for this. If Leibniz hadn't gone the path of ridiculing Newton, maybe they could have worked together and eliminated a few years of work for future mathematicians. AgoLaetus (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to discuss this further, see the reference desk. This talk page is not a forum.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Based on my research, it sounds like the conflicts worsened based off of pressure from both Leibniz and Newton's followers more than the actual mathematicians themselves, although Leibniz did dedicate his life to proving Newton wrong. MTH314ccc (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It is amazing how throughout history, there are always these conflicts that can, and does hinder the opportunity to learn new things. It is a wonder how math history and knowledge would have played out had Newton published his book De Methodis Fluxionium in 1671 whe it was originally written (History of Mathematics: An Introduction; by David M. Burton (2007)). We'll never know what would be different if Newton and Leibniz could have worked together. M larry l (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Saint Martin's University, Math Major.

I do have the responsibility of wrapping this conversation up, although I believe that the both of you summed up my post beautifully. I will tie this all together by stating that there are not very many cases in which rivalries are beneficial, and when they are it is only to fuel the drive to win. What many do not realize is that bringing two powerful minds together can result in something amazing, and hopefully future mathematicians can come together for discoveries just as influential as those made by both Leibniz and Newton. MTH314ccc (talk) 07:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

removing view of Charles Murray (author)

Charles Murray's view of Newton adds nothing to the article. He is not a physicist, mathematician, or history of science scholar. The inclusion of his view here is superfluous. Should we include a sentence from everyone who thinks Newton is the bees knees? I'll be removing his view unless some secondary sources can be found which give his view sufficient weight for inclusion. aprock (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll be removing this presently. If someone has any secondary sources giving weight to Murray's view here please add them. aprock (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Peacock in intro

The last para of the intro:

Newton is considered by many scholars and members of the general public to be one of the most influential people in human history.

I dislike it.

1. yes he is one of the most influential people in human history,
2. I already knew that, for the rest, let the reader decide,
3. the para lacks any real information except to say: he's one of the top-X:y guys in many a guy's top-X:y lists

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The para is intended to be a conclusion of the previous intro paras, which tell us of greater things than most of us understand. But it has some irrelevant greatness stuff and no own content. What Newton in essence did, was to unnecessitate the medieval cosmologies by generalizing the physics of gravity to be valid on earth and in sky alike. He wasn't alone in that, Galileo was the other guy, but Galileo was introducing the experimental approach while Newton created the unified theory. I think the last para is simply not needed. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 146.64.81.7, 4 July 2011

146.64.81.7 (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Human Accomplishment

See this edit: [2] Please explain. A notable book, Human Accomplishment, so I fail to see how it is undue? Miradre (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

See the section just above [3]: [The work of Isaac Newton is not within the area of Charles Murray's expertise (political science, race and IQ, education). Inclusion of it here is not encyclopedic, and treads quite gingerly on boundaries your topic ban. aprock (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The book is not about race or for that matter IQ. The book certainly deals with Newton. It is a notable work and thus a reliable, notable source.Miradre (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to get into an extended discussion with you about edits that may violate your topic ban. If someone else feels the views of Murray are encyclopedic and merit inclusion, they can make the argument themselves. aprock (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If you have no actual arguments and do not want to discuss the issue, then I will restore the book.Miradre (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Original research

I don't agree with the edits made by user Hawker07 (talk · contribs):

• "...who is considered by a substantial number of scholars and members of general public...", should be "...who is considered by Michael H Hart...".
• "The Principia is generally considered to be the most important single work ever published in the history of science" should be: "Stephen Hawking considers The Principia to be probably the most important single work ever published in the physical sciences." (sic - but not the emphasis)

In both cases the statements are wp:original research and thus not properly sourced. After correction, the opinions are —i.m.o.— not sufficiently notable.

Ideas? DVdm (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding influential man

Anybody could justify their claims as to why Newton could not be called an influential man??His works not only inspired the science but also the way the people think as a whole.The newtonianism has become a corner stone for the generations that followed him.This is a disgrace to a man universally acknowledged as the greatest genius in history.Hawker07 (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No-one is trying to knock Newton here, but claims like "universally acknowledged as the greatest genius in history" need to be backed up by reliable sources. Mikenorton (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you think the current edit regarding influential scientist is from reliable source?If so my citation from the book "the world of mathematics" regarding principia can also be a reliable source.Hawker07 (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

sentence ends with preposition

The second sentence of the fifth paragraph ends, "the subjects he is mainly associated with."

Suggest changing to, "the subjects with which he is mainly associated."

Cgos62703 (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Optics/telescope date problem

The Optics section starts with Newton lecturing on optics, 1670-2. It continues with the various bits, such as showing prism expanding light and another putting it back together. Then it continues with "from this work ..." and has Newton create his telescope to demonstrate his theories. Problem is, the telescope was built (according to the article) in '68, before the work on optics which led him to build the telescope. A little expert help, please.68.197.58.215 (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Stukeley Kensington quote

Referring to this edit by user Betty Logan (talk · contribs), followed by my undo, and this change. The last change of source left a part of the text unsourced, so everything should be changed about this quotation. I think we should leave it as it was, with errors and all, and I don't think that the original source is unreliable. Thoughts anyone? - DVdm (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The unsupported first sentence is irrelevant anyway, so it can be pulled. There is a reason this article was demoted from FA status, and there is no way it is getting back there when it cites a transcription by some bloke called "Glenn" on his own personal website. Betty Logan (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No matter, I've found a Newton biography that includes the whole passage. Betty Logan (talk) 14:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If others don't disagree, then fine with me. A search for "centre" (the way you like it, so to speak) in the Morrison book reveals this on page 2. Clearly the blockquote is not there. A search for the string "Kensington" produces nothing, so let's use your other source and let's hope it is of better quality than Glenn's stuff. - DVdm (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

When I click on your link I get something which isn't even in English. But either way, the source doesn't have to be accessible online, it just has to meet the WP:RS criteria; I can only assume you are accessing through a non-English speaking server. Betty Logan (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Changed language in my search links. Agree with remainder. DVdm (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Apple story

Moved from the article, just after the quote from Voltaire:

These accounts are probably exaggerations of Newton's own tale about sitting by a window in his home (Woolsthorpe Manor) and watching an apple fall from a tree.

I suspect this is speculation in that AFAIK there is no quote by Newton or his contemporaries that he was specifically indoors when he saw the apple. Possibly a misremembered debunking of the myth that the apple actually fell on his head? PaddyLeahy (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The link (ref 90) http://www.newtonproject.ic.ac.uk/texts/viewtext.php?id=THEM00167&mode=diplomatic is broken and surely without it there is nothing in this article which verifys the story.86.180.99.45 (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Reverend Frederick Barlow, in his dictionary of 1722, states Newton was inspired when watching apple blossom falling. (Barlow was a noted lexographer, mentioned in Boswell's "Life of Johnson", who once asked for a copy of "Barlow's books".) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan14723 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Error in fiance's name

The article lists the name of his fiance as "Miss Storey."

When Newton was attending King's School in Grantham, he boarded with an apothecary William_Clarke_(apothecary) whose wife (Katherine Babington) had children from a previous marriage to Edward Storer. Young Isaac became engaged to her daughter Katherine Storer (sister of Anne, Eduard and Arthur_Storer and half-sister to John and Martha Clarke). This engagement was later cancelled and Newton remained unmarried his entire life.

---

Ed, 08 Jan 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.81.162.156 (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"a prosperous farmer"

citation needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.67.101 (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 February 2012

the word manuscript in the part about mathematics is misspelled.

Bmkw97 (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done. - DVdm (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Was Issac Newton Scottish?

In an American book on Scottish contributions to civilisation, one of the many famous people cited as having Scottish origins was Issac Newton. The story goes that Newton was with some Scottish scientist friends one evening and,perhaps feeling like something of an outsider, suddenly declared to the assembled company: "Mr Gregory, I do believe you don't know I'm a Scotsman!". I believe this anecdote was related publically during his lifetime and Newton never refuted making the claim. Given the next great genius, James Clark Maxwell, was Scottish, followed bt the Jew Einstein,if this claim were true it could mean without the existance of little Scotland we could still be living in the Dark Ages! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.28.134 (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Dark Ages? I think that you're confusing him with James Bowman Lindsay who invented the light bulb. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Scotland wishes he was no he was 100% English, and btw Humphrey davy an Englishmen invented the light bulb not Lindsay.109.154.13.131 (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You Brits can debate all you want on Scotland, or England, etc., but the incandescent bulb was invented by an American, Thomas Alva Edison. 207.237.139.174 (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Allen Roth

look how stupid you are — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.104.132 (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Edison made a useful lightbulb, a english guy made the first one but it would only last a minute or so at the most. 69.115.70.39 (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Mercury poisoning

After his death, Newton's body was discovered to have had massive amounts of mercury in it, probably resulting from his alchemical pursuits. Mercury poisoning could explain Newton's eccentricity in late life.

Per later life of Isaac Newton, it was his hair that was tested, not his body. Since hair testing is not enough to definitively conclude his body contained "massive amounts of mercury", is this passage referring to some other test, or should it be changed? Viriditas (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus of mercury poisoning. See Thomas Levenson (2009). Newton and the counterfeiter : the unknown detective career of the world's greatest scientist. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ISBN 978-0-151012787. OCLC 276340857., for example.

Here is a relevant section of Science Friday with the author:
Prof. LEVENSON: People have talked about the possibility of mercury poisoning and it's a possibility, but it's completely inconclusive. I've never been persuaded by the argument because the suggestion - he had a couple of nervous breakdowns at different points including in 1693, right after an intense period of experimentation.

FLATOW: Mm-hmm.

Prof. LEVENSON: But, you know, he hadn't - you know, he did an awful lot of very intense work including writing the "Principia" while he was spending six weeks twice a year, you know, pounding the alchemical furnaces. So, I've never found it a very satisfying explanation…

FLATOW: Yeah.

Prof. LEVENSON: …for other mental ailments he had.

--Transcript of: "Isaac Newton: Physicist And ... Crime Fighter?". Science Friday. June 5, 2009. NPR. {{cite episode}}: Check |episodelink= value (help); External link in |episodelink= and |transcripturl= (help); Unknown parameter |episodelink= ignored (|episode-link= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |transcripturl= ignored (|transcript-url= suggested) (help)

--Javaweb (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Thanks. Do you think we should rewrite the section here and in the daughter article? Viriditas (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. There is too much educated guessing and there isn't a consensus to support it. The theories deserve a shorter mention. --Javaweb (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Aspergers

The Cambridge psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen considers it "fairly certain" that Newton suffered from Asperger syndrome.

That seems to be strong language for something that is impossible to prove. Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

He is an authority on autism and we are quoting him correctly. If there are other notable opinions published in WP:RS, they certainly could be included. (BTW, Baron-Cohen is also "Borat's" cousin.) --Javaweb (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

That's an odd quote, since it is impossible to be certain that Newton suffered from Asperger syndrome. I'll definitely take a closer look at the original context. Viriditas (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, it is hard enough to diagnose someone who is alive, much more so from 400 year-old descriptions. --Javaweb (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Appointment with the Professor

They're all wasting their time.There was Faraday since you've gone. Rutherford did something, and then began to enjoy himself, so that was that. It's a disgrace. If it weren't for you, I'd burn the damn continent.

I will be making some changes though. You do understand that Motion goes to GG. You will however have the Math for it. Collisions, Conservation, Optics and Sound will be consolidated.And I'll keep your little secret. Everyone is allowed to cheat a little.:)))) I'm giving Michael Electromagnetism.He's written so many pages about the same thing again and again.:))) Good news. Dutch disturbance may be settled. We may have diffraction finally. I'm not very confident, but I'll manage to trick them at least.:)))))

Modern physics is open to the people, I'm expecting original developments in the other fields. They may or may not be Newtonian in nature. You should be happy with that.

PS:ugly portrait,they must've hated you...i understand Issac..i understand...its okay...no crying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.201.205 (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Religion for him

Did anyone know that Isaac Newton whas actually religious? Many people think he wasn't because he was so logicail minded. I mean no offence to anybody but to be totally honest there is now real, actual proof of God, so people are surprised that he was religious. He looked into theology and did quite a lot of work on biblical numbers. In the book 'principa' The most beatiful system of the sun and planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and domain of an intelligent and powerful being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.239.232 (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

His religious views are in the article and the main article it wikilinks to. It says Newton was religious. Bible numerology is in there. Modern theology is 400 years too late to fit into an article on Newton.
--Javaweb (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

The article discusses it here.If he was Christian, he was a heretic. He did not believe in Jesus's divinity, which was a requirement. Did he believe in a personal God that answers prayers? Did that God intervene in the believer's day-to-day affairs?

He was religious, interested in theology, and thought there might be scientific truths encoded in the Bible. Even Richard Dawkins says, that until Evolution was proven, with genetic inheritance, statistical studies, and the confirmation by thousands of scientists in the 20th century, there was no good explanation of how man got here so even he expected most scientists of the past were religious. BTW, the godandscience.org section on Isaac Newton does not have any information not in the other 2 references. Its "about us" link explains this is a ministry. Websites that are not generally respected authorities on the point they are verifying should not be used for citations. --Javaweb (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

If you read the definition of Heresy in Wikipedia it says that "It is distinct from apostasy, which is the formal denunciation of one's religion, principles or cause, and blasphemy, which is irreverence toward religion." and it also says that "It is usually used to discuss violations of religious or traditional laws or codes". In the case of Isaac Newton being antitrinitarian he may have been going against the church's traditions, but it was not going against the Bible. If you just read the Bible you can see for yourself... John 8:42 - "Jesus said to them: “If God were YOUR Father, YOU would love me, for from God I came forth and am here. Neither have I come of my own initiative at all, but that One sent me forth." Colossians 1:15 - "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;" This says that Jesus was created. Proverbs 8:22 - "“Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago." Jesus himself saying that he was created by God. Daniel 7:13, 14 - "“I kept on beholding in the visions of the night, and, see there! with the clouds of the heavens someone like a son of man happened to be coming; and to the Ancient of Days he gained access, and they brought him up close even before that One. And to him there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him. His rulership is an indefinitely lasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin." This says that Jesus is given rulership. Did he give himself rulership? 1 Corinthians 15:24 - "Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power." This is talking about Jesus handing back that rulership to God...Is he handing it back to himself? You can also reason, who did Jesus pray to? Was he talking to himself or to God? And who raised Jesus from death? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.6.190 (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Middle name

I see that on the title page of the Principia he calls himself I. S. Newton. I find no mention of his middle name in this article. I think it should be mentioned. Does anyone know what it is? 17:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, to answer my own question, looking at the photo of his own marked up copy, I see he corrected his name from autore IS. NEWTON to auctore ISaaco NEWTON. Apparently the S was not a middle initial, rather the IS. was an abbreviation for Isaaco. Rwflammang (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

"... which dominated the scientific view of the physical universe for the next three centuries". Shouldn't that be two centuries, given that Einstein was about 200 years after Newton? MFlet1 (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

His view is still dominant today. Einstein did not overthrow Newton, but did compliment his theory in some extreme cases. Rwflammang (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Love life

Why is it not mentioned that Sir Isaac Newton was most likely gay, that he had notable relations of a more intimate nature with significant persons in his life. It is mentioned in other reputable encyclopaedias, it makes no sense why it is not mentioned here?85.230.137.182 (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Please provide the reliable secondary sources that your fellow editors can review. Please provide page#s, etc. In general, Encyclopedias are not good sources for WP. --Javaweb (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb

Where? It's not in my copy of Britannica nor in Encarta. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It was mentioned in Britannica in the past at least, and it's mentioned in biographies. There is naturally no "direct" evidence of this, since it would be criminal at the time, but there is a lot of other indications. I think it is important enough that it deserves a mention in some way. I noticed there is some previous discussion about it in the archives of this page as well.85.230.137.182 (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 May 2012

After the existing sentence "During this period he investigated the refraction of light, demonstrating that a prism could decompose white light into a spectrum of colours, and that a lens and a second prism could recompose the multicoloured spectrum into white light.[35]" you should add the following new sentence: "Modern scholarship has revealed that Newton's analysis and resynthesis of white light owes a debt to corpuscular alchemy." This sentence should be followed by the following reference: . Barnaculus (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your very specific request, I wish all edit requests were like this! Egg Centric 00:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Minor grammar edit request

Sorry if I'm doing this incorrectly but in the first sentence of the section, 'Counterfeiters' the word felons should not have an apostrophe as it's simply a plural. 115.186.228.226 (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Parliamentary Service

He is stated to have been "Member of the Parliament of England" but, unlike articles on other former M.P.s, no constituency named. Worth finding out, by those with more access to constituency facts than myself.86.155.137.244 (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC) Belatedly signedCloptonson (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Influenced

Neil Degrasse Tyson has said many times that Isaac Newton is his greatest influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.10.252.26 (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Love life, part II

Shouldn't there be a section on his alleged virginity? Something like:

Although it is impossible to verify, it is commonly believed that Newton died a virgin. Even the French writer and philosopher Voltaire, who was in London at the time of Newton's funeral, believed it, writing that "I have had that confirmed by the doctor and the surgeon who were with him when he died."<ref>''Letters on England'', 14, pp. 68-70 (at least that's what the footnote for the quote in p. 6 of James Gleick's biography ''Isaac Newton'' says)</ref> What is certain is that no evidence has been uncovered that he had any romantic relationship. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What a curious suggestion! First "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". That no one has been found whose works have survived and has written about Newton's romances means nothing at all. What possible impact on his notability does his lack -or not- of a romance have? As to his "virginity", that is of even less substance. What can a doctor and a surgeon know about it? If Newton were a woman, their words might have some standing. Otherwise, the matter is anecdotal and not widespread at that. Bielle (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but testimony to absence by people who knew him is. Regardless, it's up to reliable sources, not Wikipedia editors, to decide what the evidence does or does not prove. If biographies of Newton say that he is not known to have had any romantic or sexual relationship and document remarks upon his singleness by writers of the time, it should be included. Readers are sure to be interested in whether or not he had a lover or family. However, I don't think the wording "died a virgin" is as encyclopedic as it could be. - Cal Engime (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You seem to think I'm trying to say that he was a virgin. I'm only saying that speculation about it has reached mythic proportions for many people, including Voltaire. Like it or not, it's a significant aspect of his life. Reference 11 has a long quote about the subject. It's discussed in some detail in The Newton Handbook, in Gleick's biography, Isaac Newton by Mitch Stokes. Carl Sagan's Cosmos goes so far as to state he was "a virgin to the day he died". I doubt you could find any reasonable biography that didn't touch upon the subject. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Like George Washington and the cherry tree, whether it has any basis in truth is secondary; it has become part of the mythology surrounding the man. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Clarityfiend, would you be able to provide citations to Gleick's biography for what he himself has to say about Newton's love life, and not just famous historical figures he discusses? It would be especially helpful if he explicitly states that a certain view is held by the majority of biographers and historians. - Cal Engime (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall Gleick saying much more about it. In fact, I found his entire book rather insubstantial. I guess I could get it from the library again and check it again. I'm also going to see what other bios are available there. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Refusing holy orders

Newton did refuse holy orders. Footnote 10 makes that very clear. What he feared was that his real reason for refusing them would become public. By rejecting Trinitarianism, he was at serious odds with Church of England doctrine and public knowledge of this rejection would also cost him his professional standing and his social position. The last sentence of the third paragraph of the lede is misleading.

It currently says: "Newton secretly rejected Trinitarianism, and feared being accused of refusing holy orders.[10]"

I suggest it should say something like: "Newton successfully petitioned the King to relieve him from any obligation to take holy orders. However, for the rest of his life he feared that his real reason for refusing them, which was his rejection of the doctrine of Trinitarianism, would be discovered and that he would consequently lose his professional position and his social standing."

Comments? Bielle (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

newton v leibnitz

The debate over who invented calculus - Newton or Liebnitz misses a critical mathematical technique.

Newton used Euclidian Geometry for his mathematical engine. Liebnitz used the mathematics of Al Zebarra (algebra).

Newton's method used axioms that were independent of numbers. Liebnitz used methodology that was numerically dependent. In computer speak, Newton was an Analog and Liebnitz was a digital computer. 108.208.251.209 (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC) No way! he is not right at all ... we all knew it after felix jumped — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.233.203 (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 November 2012

The Cambridge psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen considers it "fairly certain" that Newton had Asperger syndrome.[15] Please remove "The Cambridge psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen considers it "fairly certain" that Newton had Asperger syndrome.[15]" because it is not likely to diagnose Issac Newton with Asperger Syndrome with a high level of certainty over 250 years after his death.

Not done: The cited source backs up the statement. RudolfRed (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 November 2012

I believe that in the info box, for the date that Isaac Newton was born, December is misspelled. Dn225106 (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Date of Birth

My daughter Leila pointed out that Newton's Date of Birth is mispelled: Decemebr

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.78.131 (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Darius I and Emperor Gustasp

I located scholarly articles suggesting Sir Isaac Newton believed Darius I to be the son of Emperor Gustasp or Gustasp himself, does anyone have additional information regarding this research?

Twillisjr (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

editrequest

Please add the sidebar to the "Life" section

{{IsaacNewtonSegments}}

-- 70.24.245.16 (talk) 13:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done - DVdm (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Typo on death date

it says:

Died 20 March 1727 (aged 84) [OS: 20 March 1726; NS: 31 March 1727][1]

it should say:

Died 20 March 1727 (aged 84) [OS: 20 March 1727; NS: 31 March 1727][1]

186.35.10.237 (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)cokeramirez

Please see the section above titled "Error in stated year of death of Isaac Newton in the section Later life". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Weasel words

The very first sentence:

Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727) was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist and theologian, who has been considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived.

By many? 86.15.236.184 (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The section on Fame in the article adds some substance. Straw Cat (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Error in stated year of death of Isaac Newton in the section Later life.

To my great surprise I just found a typing error in the article on Isaac Newton! The following text appears under the section "Later life":

"Newton died in his sleep in London on 31 March 1727 [OS: 20 March 1726],[1] and was buried in Westminster Abbey."

Isaac Newton died in 1727 and this text should therefore read:

"Newton died in his sleep in London on 31 March 1727 [OS: 20 March 1727],[1] and was buried in Westminster Abbey." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.90.120.50 (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the report - looks like this has now been fixed. Keith D (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't actually a typo, it was an attempt (not by me) at accuracy; but clearly there's still some confusion. The difference between Julian ("Old Style") and Gregorian ("New Style") dating is explained both in the first footnote of this article and at Old Style and New Style dates, but let me have another go here. There are two quite distinct elements to it. One relates to the gradual "drift" between the two calendars, which in the 17th century amounted to 10 days, and in the 18th century to 11 days. The other, which is the point at issue, is that the year began on different days: 25 March under Old Style dating, 1 January under New Style dating. Newton was born on 25 December 1642 OS (i.e. according to the calendar in use at the time), which converts to 4 January 1643 – a simple 10 day adjustment. However, his date of death is problematic, because he died on 20 March, in the "window" after the start of the NS new year but before the start of the OS new year. According to OS dating, therefore, he died in the "old" year, 1726. Under NS dating, his day and month of death convert to 31 March (an 11-day adjustment); but his year of death, 1726, advances a whole year to 1727.

The question is what we should do about it in this article. WP:OSNS simply advises following "reliable secondary sources" – which is nice and flexible, but not terribly helpful here. The most usual convention among historians is to stick with OS for the day and month, but to adjust the year, where it varies, to NS: that convention seems to be broadly adhered to on Wikipedia. Under that convention, we would say that Newton was born on 25 December 1642 and died on 20 March 1727, which is indeed what the lead currently says. The problem is that by following this up (in the lead and in the infobox) with a "conversion" to NS dates (4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727), we're implying that the first set of dates are OS; and we then explicitly say in the body of the article that he was born on "what is retroactively considered 4 January 1643 [OS: 25 December 1642]" and that he died on "31 March 1727 [OS: 20 March 1727]". But if we are going to give his death date according to OS conventions, then the year should actually appear as 1726 (as indeed it did, in the text, until a couple of weeks ago).

I can quite see that many readers won't give a toss about all this, and will just want the "correct" dates to put in their school projects or whatever. One solution would simply be to delete the NS conversion entirely: it doesn't serve any real purpose (except, perhaps, for astrologers), and I can't immediately see any other biographical articles for this period which include it. However, I suspect there's a bit of a fuss made about it in some Newton biographies, and that dropping it wouldn't be popular with those who want to celebrate "Newtonmas". Another solution would be to adopt the fairly widespread academic convention (following 16th and 17th-century practice) of double-dating: i.e. to say that he died on 20 March 1726/7. That makes things crystal clear for those who understand the convention, and for those who don't at least flags up the fact that there's something funny going on. But it would only confuse casual readers who just want something quick, simple and accurate. My preferred solution would be to cut the NS conversion from the lead, so that it simply says "25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727" (so that's what the schoolkids can copy); adjust the dates in the infobox to read "Born 25 December 1642 [NS: 4 January 1643]" and "Died 20 March 1727 (aged 84) [OS: 20 March 1726; NS: 31 March 1727]"; adjust the dates in the text to read "25 December 1642 [NS: 4 January 1643]" and "20 March 1727 [OS: 20 March 1726; NS: 31 March 1727]"; and rework footnote 1 to clarify things further, particularly regarding the issue over his year of death. If there's consensus along those lines, I'll have a bash at doing it, but I thought I should air the issues here first. GrindtXX (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No comments so far. I'll leave this a few more days before attempting any serious editing, but meanwhile I've restored 1726 as his OS death date, as to say he died in 1727 OS is just wrong. GrindtXX (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Still no comments, which I've read as meaning nobody feels strongly about the subject. I've now edited the text as per my proposals above. GrindtXX (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I overlooked the fact that on 6 January an editor changed the death date from 1726 to 1727 throughout. I have just changed it back for all the above reasons. For the record, all standard biographical sources I'm aware of which don't get bogged down in the technicalities of Old Style/New Style – including the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which is about as authoritative as they come – state that he was born on 25 December 1642 and died on 20 March 1727. GrindtXX (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Joseph-Louis Lagrange is considered to be a French mathematician. A joke

Lagrange was born in the Italian city of Turin and baptized Giuseppe Lodovico Lagrangia. He was born in Italy of Italian parents (the reference to his French great-grandfather is hardly relevant); he was educated in Italy and there began his magnificent career. He is in the fullest sense a son of Italy. Source: I am a teacher. --Aries no Mur (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you an Italian teacher Sir? (No bias against you but if you are, that would explain why you would consider Lagrange to be an Italian)

• This is what I found from Lagrange's article - "Lagrange's parents were Italian, although his paternal great grandfather was French. In 1787, at age 51, he moved from Berlin to France and became a member of the French Academy. He remained in France until the end of his life. Therefore, Lagrange is alternatively considered a French and an Italian scientist. Lagrange survived the French Revolution and became the first professor of analysis at the École Polytechnique upon its opening in 1794. Lagrange was appointed Senator in 1799, and Napoleon named him to the Legion of Honour in 1803 and made him a Count of the Empire in 1808. He is buried in the Panthéon and his name appears as one of the 72 names inscribed on the Eiffel Tower."

Based on this I would safely say that he would be better called an Italian-born French scientist and not Italian or French. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sarcasm. Goodbye. --Aries no Mur (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Relationship between occultism and science

I know that the line "Had he not relied on the occult idea of action at a distance, across a vacuum, he might not have developed his theory of gravity." sounds very nice, but in actuality, he realized that time had to play a role and he was greatly dissatisfied with the incompleteness of his theory, which is why he waited so long with publishing it. Can the line be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.241.122.4 (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I will go ahead and remove that sentence, unless someone can provide a good mainstream reference to support it. One of the most famous things Newton ever said was that he did not "feign hypotheses" about why gravity acted across a vacuum, being content to provide a mathematical description that would account for the observed motion of earthly and heavenly bodies. In Query 31, at the end of the Opticks, where Newton allows himself a rare opportunity to wax philosophical, he says that he regards gravity and other natural forces "not as occult qualities, supposed to result from the specific form of things, but as general laws of nature, by which the things themselves are formed; their appearing to us by phenomena, though their causes be not yet discovered." - Eb.hoop (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Typo in first paragraph

The line in the first paragraph that read "as mathematician" should say "as a mathematician".

Please fix it. -- wrote someone who didn't sign

No. I've already fixed lots of stuff. It's your turn. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Parliamentary Service and Question

I have named the (hitherto nameless) Parliamentary constituency for which Newton sat (mentioned in section Later Life). The TV programme on BBC2 which I have just watched, "Isaac Newton; the Last Magician" stated he was MP for Cambridge, implying the city. However a check on wikipedia articles reveals it should correctly have been Cambridge University. One question - is it correct procedure to give a former Member of the Commons the postnominal initials "MP" if, as in Newton's case, he or she ceased to be a sitting member long before his or her death?Cloptonson (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Annus mirabilis

Not a single mention of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.13.94 (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Standing on the shoulders of giants

I think there needs to be more context than simply referring to Herbert as this misses the attribution by John of Salisbury to Bernard of Chartres that the giants were the old testament and the 4 apostles those standing of the shoulders - eg from Wiki page...Standing on the shoulders of giants

"Bernard of Chartres used to say that we are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, so that we can see more than they, and things at a greater distance, not by virtue of any sharpness of sight on our part, or any physical distinction, but because we are carried high and raised up by their giant size. (Dicebat Bernardus Carnotensis nos esse quasi nanos, gigantium humeris insidentes, ut possimus plura eis et remotiora videre, non utique proprii visus acumine, aut eminentia corporis, sed quia in altum subvenimur et extollimur magnitudine gigantea.)"

This attribution is more like the 'giants of Des Cartes and Hooke's work Newton is referring to.

I will only comment for now rather than edit it, open to what others think here about incorporating this directly rather than just linking to the SOSG pageDavdevalle (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

What an interesting idea! I had always assumed that Newton was suffering from an uncharacteristic outburst of modesty. I suggest you make Standing on the shoulders of giants an internal link and say its possible a reference to old testament giants. JRPG (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Invested in slave trade

Didn't Isaac Newton invest and lost money in the "South Sea" slave trade during the 1720's? If so this needs to be in the article if not already. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source, then it should definitely be included. However obnoxious as it seem today, many other people of his generation did the same and it's not what he's noted for. If you need any help, please leave a message on my talk page. JRPG (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is the source: Hugh Thomas (1997) The Slave Trade: The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade: 1440-1870, p. 241 Cmguy777 (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the above source Newton had invested £ 20,000 in the "South Sea" slave trade and had lost all his money in 1720. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Newton lost £ 2,452,000.00 or $ 3,706,920.45 in 2012 value of money. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cmguy777 Looking at this, I think the best place to put it is under personal life. Any other suggestions? Feel free to add it yourself -as agreed on talk page -if you wish JRPG (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Personal life would be best. Newton was extremely intelligent but very human. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Newton invested in the South Sea Company, along with many others - our article contains some of his quotes on the subject. Slave trading was part of the company's activity, not its entire purpose, although it seems to be one of the few activities that it actually carried out. Mikenorton (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks both, I'll add it to personal life and use the South Sea Company link rather than the Google books as its more comprehensive. Feel free to amend if necessary! JRPG (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 June 2013

Isaac Newton was born January 4th and died March 31st http://www.biography.com/people/isaac-newton-9422656 Essence314 (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

 Not done - See footnote in infobox:

During Newton's lifetime, two calendars were in use in Europe: the Julian ("Old Style") calendar in protestant and Orthodox regions, including Britain; and the Gregorian ("New Style") calendar in Roman Catholic Europe. At Newton's birth, Gregorian dates were ten days ahead of Julian dates: thus his birth is recorded as taking place on 25 December 1642 Old Style, but can be converted to a New Style (modern) date of 4 January 1643. By the time of his death, the difference between the calendars had increased to eleven days: moreover, he died in the period after the start of the New Style year on 1 January, but before that of the Old Style new year on 25 March. His death occurred on 20 March 1726 according to the Old Style calendar, but the year is usually adjusted to 1727. A full conversion to New Style gives the date 31 March 1727.

- DVdm (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 July 2013

Newton5183573296 (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC) about the tooth

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. What about the tooth? RudolfRed (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 July 2013

In the section "further reading" the following item could be added: Steffen Ducheyne (2012). “The main Business of Natural Philosophy:” Isaac Newton’s Natural-Philosophical Methodology (Dordrecht, Springer). This monograph contains a study of Newton's methodology in the Principia.

78.22.136.99 (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Mdann52 (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

changed link in References 6 and 95

In the References number 6. and 95: “Snobelen, Stephen D. (1999). "Isaac Newton, heretic: the strategies of a Nicodemite" (PDF). British Journal for the History of Science 32 (4): 381–419.” The PDF is at http://isaacnewtonstheology.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/heretic.pdf now. (DOI still OK) 85.127.25.51 (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Issac in the 22nd century

COOOOOOOOLLLLL kid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.64.222 (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

b — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.198.147 (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what this means (in 22nd century) but I'm sure Isaac Newton appreciates it. Doesn't he? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC) Can you explain yourself?

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2013

In the sidebar, Newtons death(old style) is written as "1726". It should be 1727, like it is written in the line above, below, and in start description, and on other sites. Xuigh (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done - There is a note with a full explanation in the sidebar. - DVdm (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The claim in footnote 1 that Old Style dates before March 25 come before the Old Style new year and should therefore be expressed as happening in the previous year is ludicrous. The only source I've seen that attaches any calendar significance to March 25 is the Wikipedia article on the Gregorian calendar. See Birthday wrong! below. The date 20 March 1727 should be labelled OS. The 1726 date is of interest only to British tax historians and just baffles everyone else. Remove it. Jimkinna (talk) 15:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Birthday wrong!

Please check with sources but both google and the bbc suggest 4th of January and not 25th of December. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.78.147 (talk) 12:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, please read the article. The apparent discrepancy is explained in detail in footnote 1. GrindtXX (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

footnote 1 can be understood better in light of the Adoption in Europe section of Wikipedia's Gregorian calendar article. After 1753, the beginning of the British tax year was moved from March 25th to April 5th. Many sources agree that Newton's Old Style death date was March 20, 1727. This would be March 20 of the 1726 tax year. It would be better if March 20, 1727 was labelled OS. If it's useful to refer to the 1726 date at all, it should be labelled some other way. Jimkinna (talk) 05:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

This issue seems to come up time and time again in relation to this one article, and I really don't understand why. The same arguments could be applied to almost any biographical article on a 17th or 18th-century figure, and yet they don't seem to arouse the same degree of concern or angst as they do here. The question of Old Style/New Style dating is not one that's "of interest only to British tax historians" (in fact the tax year is merely a side-issue), but is familiar to all historians of the early modern period: you could start by reading the Wikipedia article on Old Style and New Style dates, which, among other things, states "[t]he O.S./N.S. designation is particularly relevant for dates which fall between the start of the modern year (1 January) and the start of the contemporary year, which was 25 March in England up until 1752". The problem is that the O.S./N.S. designation applies to two quite distinct changes in the calendar (although they were implemented in Britain at the same date): the Julian/Gregorian change, and the start-of-year change from 25 March to 1 January. The common practice among English-speaking historians dealing with the 17th and 18th centuries (frequently noted and justified in the forewords to their books) is to adhere to Old Style calendar days and months (because that's the system used in contemporary documents, and makes life easier when trying to establish when events happened in relation to one another), but, for dates between 1 Jan and 25 March, to make the switch to New Style for the year. If there's felt to be potential for confusion, another way of recording a year is by dual dating, e.g. 1726/7. So there are four possible ways to denote Newton's death date: 20 March 1726 (Old Style: the date appearing in British documents at the time, and therefore not to be neglected); 31 March 1727 (New Style: only really of interest to those wishing to check events happening in Britain against others happening in Catholic Europe, and to those wishing to observe astronomically-precise anniversaries); 20 March 1727 (the historians' compromise version, which is what appears in most authoritative sources, but which unfortunately doesn't have a simple "style" label that can be attached to it); and 20 March 1726/7 (dual dating, which makes things crystal clear for those who understand the convention, but does indeed "just baffle everyone else"). Personally, I think the article and note 1 currently go into as much detail as is necessary (no more, and no less). I'm going to convert note 1 from a "reference" to a "note" (which it is), and to add the note markers to the lead sentence. I don't think anything more is required: others are welcome to disagree. GrindtXX (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I've added the note marker to the lead sentence, but have just wasted an hour of my life trying and failing to convert note 1 to a footnote rather than a reference – can't work out what I'm doing wrong. If anyone else thinks this would be helpful, please do it. GrindtXX (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2014

Isacc newton was born on January 4 1643

219.89.51.242 (talk) 08:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC) What it shows is 25 december 1642

 Not done - This is explained in the first sentence of the "Early life" section, 4th January is a New style date, but Newton was born while the Julian calendar was still in use. Mikenorton (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Newton and Asperger's

'The Cambridge psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen considers it "fairly certain" that Newton had Asperger syndrome.[12]'

This is sheer speculation and I think it should be dropped from the article. It has become fashionable to ascribe Asperger's to anyone with an unusual facility for math, yet Asperger's itself is poorly defined. Newton's quirks of personality can easily be explained by his genius and the circumstances of his childhood - it's unnecessary to evoke the psychological syndrome du jour. 75.36.144.146 (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Michel Lusk

Hear, hear! Well spoken; inspired! — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Despite what appears to be a consensus here, the above named excerpt remained. I replaced it, not only for the reasons above, but also for the fact that it is not a "fact of his early life." Second, academic psychologists are rarely scientifically qualified to diagnose people they've never met, much less those who have been dead nearly 300 years. Third, we have no indication of Baron-Cohen's skills in historical interpretation and analysis--something necessary to imputing an illness to them. Finally, the original speculation was made prior to the most recent updates in medical knowledge of Asperger spectrum disorder, which were changed in the DSM-V (2013). Diagnosing someone as having "Asperger's Syndrome" is somewhat outdated and inadequate given the most recent medical knowledge. See the recent changes to "Asperger's Syndrome" DSM-V on its wiki page. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth1seeker (talk • contribs) 21:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2014

I have a nice photo of the apple tree with his birthplace in the back ground. Please consider adding it to the article:

This is a photo of Isaac Newton's apple tree with the house where he was born in the back ground.

Arthurmarris (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 23:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"Since the law applies only to systems of constant mass,[133] m can be brought out of the derivative operator. By substitution using the definition of acceleration, the equation can be written in the iconic form"

That just isn't true. In many cases that is true, but it is not only true in those cases. For instance it is perfectly possible to use this in the case of a rocket emitting mass at a constant velocity and hence losing it, which causes a force due to the change in mass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.136.175 (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI: New file on commons: page from Isaac Newton alchemical manuscript

If there's interest in adding this to the Newton page, it's at

Isaac Newton alchemical manuscript page, Chemical Heritage Foundation