[Osx-nutters] The separation of church and state.

[LuKreme]

On 4-Dec-2007, at 15:37, Mark Smith wrote:
> (Taking this one a stage deeper though, there is some evidence that
> Newton was a poor scientist in comparison to Leibnitz. He was a gifted
> thinker and mathematician, maybe more gifted than Leibnitz ? but if
> the records are to be believed, less disciplined in method. Just, you
> know, throwing that in there.)


Leibnitz was a bloody genius, and it's a shame he had to share the  
stage with Newton because, frankly, anyone would have been  
overshadowed by Newton. In any other time Leibnitz would be remembered  
as one of the greats, along side Newton and Kepler and Einstein.   
Leibnitz had two great failings though; first he was a German in the  
17th century, and it's hard to seem relevant with that handicap upon  
you and second, a lot of his more interesting theories and  
philosophies didn't really make much sense until after Einstien.

 From wikipedia:

"For instance, he anticipated Albert Einstein by arguing, against  
Newton, that space, time and motion are relative, not absolute.  
Leibniz's rule in interacting theories plays a role in supersymmetry  
and in the lattices of quantum mechanics. His principle of sufficient  
reason has been invoked in recent cosmology, and his identity of  
indiscernibles in quantum mechanics, a field some even credit him with  
having anticipated in some sense. Those who advocate digital  
philosophy, a recent direction in cosmology, claim Leibniz as a  
precursor."

But, that said, his arguments lacked the solid scientific foundation  
needed, so it was 250 years later that he got some redemption.  A  
great thinker, yes, but there is no way to rank him above Newton.

I mean, Newton established everything about the physical sciences that  
carried us for just about 300 years, and for all but the nuclear  
physicists, still carries us now.  It is impossible to overestimate  
his role in shaping modern scientific thought.  Yeah, he was a bit  
sloppy at times and some of his discoveries were done better by others  
(Calculus, in particular where Newtonian Calculus is little more than  
a mess, and a largely discarded mess.  But it works. Leibnitz did much  
better with his Calculus, but it was still almost 150 or 200 years  
later before we got REAL modern Calculus.)

Still, his universal laws of motion, his work on gravity, and his work  
finally proving, once and for all, that the sun was the center of the  
solar system simply can't be ignored.  And that's just part of what he  
did. Reflecting Telescope?  Newton.  Prism and the division (and more  
importantly, recombination) of visible light?  Newton. Was he as  
complete and exacting as he could have been?  No, but then again he  
was making huge leaps in a large variety of fields.

And let's not forget his often overlooked and under-appreciated work  
(though not at the time) as the Master of the Mint which brought  
England into a powerful position thanks to his reforms of the  
coinage.  OK, it's not gravity or the laws of motion in the grand  
scheme of things, but the world would be a very different place if  
Newton hadn't taken that post as England would have been a bastard- 
stepchild of France and Spain instead of a burgeoning world power.

-- 
#27794 <Vellius>  ... I wonder if the really nerdy Klingons learn how  
to speak english