Newton credited the discovery of the inverse square law of gravity to Pythagoras (5th century BC), just as Coperinicus had credited heliocentrism to him. Here is Newton's argument:
"For Pythagoras, as Macrobius avows, stretched the intestines of sheep or the sinews of oxen by attaching various weights, and from this learned the ratio of the celestial harmony. Therefore, by means of such experiments he ascertained that the weights by which all tones on equal strings .. were reciprocally as the squares of the lengths of the string by which the musical instrument emits the same tones. But the proportion discovered by these experiments, on the evidence of Macrobius, he applied to the heavens and consequently by comparing those weights with the weights of the Planets and the lengths of the strings with the distances of the Planets, he understood by means of the harmony of the heavens that the weights of the Planets towards the Sun were reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the Sun."
That's an interesting suggestion I've never heard before, but your link appears to be down. I'm getting a 404. Is it possible this passage is referring to the reciprocal Pythagorean theorem? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem#Reciprocal...
My apologies, here is the article and citation. And no, not the reciprocal Pythagorean theorem -- learning about Pythagoreanism is a real rabbit hole, highly recommended :)
McGuire, J. E., & Rattansi, P. M. (1966). Newton and the ‘Pipes of Pan’. Notes and records of the Royal Society of London, 21(2), 108-143.
Although by some accounts Newton could be pretty nasty, a quick look at this almost makes me feel sorry for him given the advancement of his mind versus the state of knowledge at the time. Perhaps though he was in his element at that time, when so much was up for grabs.
It is the exactly the same hand symbol Henry VIII used to mark down interesting passages in Bible which he hoped would help him to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon.
Delightful! I'd say this manicule is a proto-emoji of sorts.
> Thomas Pynchon parodies this punctuation mark in his novel Gravity's Rainbow by depicting a middle finger, rather than an index finger, pointing at a line of text.
> At which time I found that method of Infinite series. And in summer 1665 being forced from Cambridge by the Plague I computed the area of the Hyperbola of Boothby in Lincolnshire to two & fifty figures by the same method. [signed] Is. Newton
He made a signed statement of his discovery just as in a 20th century engineer's/inventor's notebook.
The mention of being forced from Cambridge because of the plague makes me wonder if some great discoveries are being made right now because many bright minds have been forced home by coronavirus.
Old English had a letter called thorn that would eventually be replaced with the modern th or a y (ye olde is just said the old).
The y^e form was apparently used for the King James Bible in 1611 so it's plausible it might still have been a normal way of writing "the" as late as 1650, rather than as an affectation or abbreviation.
Edit: He also uses y^t for that which I hadn't noticed at first glance.
I love this book. They currently have his 1659-61 notebook on display at the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge (scan available at [0])
Its opened on a page titled ‘Otiose et frustra expensa’ (Idle and vain expenses) where he lists his snack binges (including ‘cheries’, ‘Tarte’, ‘Marmolet’, ‘Custardes’, and ‘Cake bred).
It's too bad the apple story is the only one the public imagination latched on to. Newton was so much more than that. Granted a lot of his discoveries were hard to explain without math, but he deserves a lot more credit for human history.
I bet writers of children's stories had a hard time explaining Euler too.
But somehow they managed to insert Einstein into the public imagination. And almost no one I know understands the photoeletric effect or the theory of relativity. I myself have the vaguest of understandings.
The end product is something successful I think. A series of children's books focused on the histories of physics, maths, philosophy, etc. while showing how each generation stands on the previous giants' shoulders would be stellar.
Unfounded conjecture: photos matter a lot. Especially when the photos of Einstein make him look like a kooky grandpa and the images of Newton make him look like a stiff, stern cartoon.
This has always been the dumbest Eureka myth because... Isaac Newton only noticed that shit falls downwards when an apple fell on his head?! If it was something that gave him some insight into the mechanism... like two differe tobjects falling at the same time and landing at the same time, causing him to think about force and mass etc... that would make much more sense.
As it was relayed, the apple thing was the moment that he realised that the mysterious force holding the celestial objects in their orbits was exactly the same force as gravity.
It's not that gravity was a new concept or anything. In fact, it goes back so far in our history that we still use the silly name "gravity" for the phenomenon; it was once though to be a property of an object or an element (in the "four elements" sense), and was opposed by another property called "levity". You will note that there is no current theory of levity. Galileo had already put numbers to gravity on Earth by that point, and the idea that the force holding things in their orbits acted according to an inverse square law was circulating before Newton got there. (There's no reason to believe he couldn't have come to that conclusion independently, but there's no reason to credit it to him either.)
What was missing was the connection; the generalization. That's not obvious in any way. How do you get an inverse square law to work with Galilean gravity? It smacks of equants and deferents until you find a way to put the effective mass of a body, such as the Earth, at its centre. Imagine a world in which there's some inverse square force thingy holding the moon and planets in their orbits, and there's gravity and you know how that works, and nobody has even the slightest notion that they're in any way related. And then you have the OFFS moment.
Yes, and it goes back at least as far as Aristotle (although he would have used a rather Greeker word). Levity would have been a property of fire and air in Aristotelian physics, where gravity was a property of earth and water.
This is only partly a myth; there are contemporary accounts from Newton's acquaintances noting how he described being inspired by observing the fall of an apple from a tree. It was the fact that an apple falls from a tree specifically in the direction of the Earth's centre that was said to have piqued his curiosity.
The apple falling on his head seems to have been a later embellishment.
I can't see why Newton would lie to his friends and relations about something like this, but in the absence of a time machine and a brain scanner your interpretation is as valid as any other.
In any case, regardless of whether Newton's recollection of his own experiences was mistaken or confected, this is not a myth in the normal sense of being the product of invention or misconstrual by others long after the event.
Galileo had no idea that the force that made dropping objects fall was the same force that keeps planets in their orbits, that it was one universal force. That was Newton's contribution.
The funny thing about Newton is that he was treating pseudo-science like alchemy with the same level of seriousness as actual science he helped advance so much.
Alchemy wasn't scientifically disproven until the 19th century, so Newton had no choice but to explore it. If transforming base metals to gold was scientifically plausible and illegal(as it was in Newton's day) most of us on this board would be chasing after it at full speed right now.
It's not just that alchemy was not "scientifically disproven" in Newton's time. There was no such thing as "scientific" and "pseudo-scientific". Reading about Newton's thinking about alchemy is a fascinating look at a way of thinking that we can hardly imagine today. I also thought that it is a nice reminder of the (certain but unimaginable) limitations of our present thinking. There is a fascinating (but pretty academic) book about Newton's Alchemy: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Foundations-Newtons-Alchemy-Cambrid...
What a wonderful perspective to look at this. We take so many things for granted. The knowledge we have is beautifully compartmented by artificial boundaries we take for granted. All the faculties we have: we rarely question the architecture of this building of knowledge we grow up with.
I've always thought there was something poetic about that.
The ancient Greeks gave us the name "atom," the indivisible unit. The alchemists chased the goal of breaking down base metals (splitting the atom) and transmuting the components into gold. Then in the 20th century, the physics were finally mapped out. The atom was split, unveiling the subatomic world, and we know full well that atoms can be fused. The term "transmutation" is even used.
It's like an ancient quest finally reached a conclusion, albeit not in the convenient way they would have hoped.
Some of the scientists working on the Manhattan Project were certainly aware of associations with mythological themes.
> Oppenheimer later recalled that, while witnessing the explosion, he thought of a verse from the Hindu holy book, the Bhagavad Gita:
> "If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one."
I'm fond of mythopoetic perspectives on technology, to find parallels in texts from the antiquities or the Renaissance.
From their point of view, we in the modern world must seem to live like magicians, communicating over vast distances, peering into our "looking glass".
His mathematical pursuits were an afterthought, certainly not what took up the vast majority of his time which was alchemy.
There is a lot we still don't know and the tendency to condense and distort is everpresent, but the facts are a lot more interesting than the oversimplifications one usually encounters in modern books about Newton's alchemy.
For instance, the focus tends to lie on alchemical transmutation (which is erroneously equated with making gold) rather than Newton's worldview (intensely religious) and philosophy (alchemical). That Newman has cheekily renamed alchemy to chymistry in his output, reinforces the fact that a specific agenda is being pushed rather than an attempt made to acquire holistic understanding.
I wouldn't call alchemy a pseudo-science. Pseudo-science is something pretending to be science but which is not using legitimate scientific methods (falsifiable hypotheses, reproducible experiments and so on). Alchemy was the study of transformations of matter and did use experiments (rather than just making stuff up, like a typical pseudo-science). Turned out some of the hypotheses were wrong.
He was certainly having fun! A refreshing peek through his mind.
Whenever I mention the likes of Newton and their works, I frequently get attacked by some people. Their argument is that Newton was a terrible human being and despite his contributions to Science, Mathematics, and the process of discoveries in general, he does not deserve praise since appraisal implies we would be condoning his behavior.
To that I usually reply, we would never accept some of his behaviors now and that does not mean his contributions are worthless. They believe we can never separate the "works" from a "person", to which I always disagree.
I'd never have thought cancel culture would extend to Newton.
The thing is if we were only taking into account the contributions of saints according to contemporary moral standards, we would have empty libraries. If we're into building some comforting society in which human beings aren't complex, don't have flaws, don't make mistakes and there's an inherent morality in whatever you accomplish just because it's you who's done it (this decade's favourite non sequitur), well I'd say that's teen brain modal logic if I ever saw one and then excuse me, but I'll be protecting those libraries brimming with stuff written by evil evil people, because a world where that exists is more valuable to me than any project of safe paradise where it doesn't.
“Whenever I mention the likes of Newton and their works, I frequently get attacked by some people. Their argument is that Newton was a terrible human being and despite his contributions to Science, Mathematics, and the process of discoveries in general, he does not deserve praise since appraisal implies we would be condoning his behavior.“
I lament atheism, even as an atheist, for the idea that only the Gods (or God) can pass judgement on the human soul is a useful idea. When nothing is sacred, every thing and person is subject to useless and pointless posthumous destruction for there is nothing to naturally curtail the hubris that we can pass judgement on all who ever lived even when we are in fact, not objectively morally superior to our forebears and even if we were, we don’t possess the means to make that determination. The dead are gone, but we still use them to distract us from our lives rather than take what is useful and discard what is not.
That nobody is perfect and not to discount their contributions because of who they are. Everyone has flaws and by that token, when looked through the worst possible moral lens, nobody deserves respect.
Our aim in life should be to pick the positive/good attributes and try instilling them within ourselves. Do not mirror them, do not condone ill-behaviors and as far as possible, be a kind being.
"Not everyone liked him" is sort of understatement. We can accept and celebrate his contributions without pretending that the dislike for Newton was all about some mild unlikability.
I guess I'm in the medium unlikability school. I mean, he seems as unlikable as a significant number of programmers who are not Isaac Newton despite pretensions to equivalent accomplishment.
on edit: meaning some programmers are not quick to make friends, and are not convivial, perhaps due to some neuro-atypical qualities, which I expect was probably the case with Newton. Not that programmers condemn people to death as their jobs generally do not require it.
I found the bigger issue to be the stuffing supposedly neutral comitee with friends in dispute with Leibniz, so that they rule your way. Or stealing Flamsteeds work and publishing it under Edmund Halley, Flamsteed’s ennemy name. Destroying last portrait of Robert Hooke cause he was competitor and disagreed with me.
These and others are major assholery issues, major ego issues. Not just "little bit neuro-atypical". Typical programmer is much much more ethical then that. Typical programmer is not actually ego maniac Newton was said to be either.
That is incidentally my issue. Can't have achievement without significantly downplaying major assholery and narcissist-like behavior. While trying to tar completely innocent uninvolved groups, like neuro-atypical or programmers with that.
And we even could avoid whole dicussion here, had people were not insistent on "just a slow to make friends".
> I found the bigger issue to be the stuffing supposedly neutral comitee with friends in dispute with Leibniz, so that they rule your way. Or stealing Flamsteeds work and publishing it under Edmund Halley, Flamsteed’s ennemy name.
It's important to consider the exact context that this happened in. Newton was a jerk, but his contemporaries don't come off smelling like roses, either. Newton had to deal with Hooke stuffing committees and rallying political support, too. This is the way the top of the Royal Society looked in the 17th century.
> Destroying last portrait of Robert Hooke cause he was competitor and disagreed with me
The current prevailing thought is that this is just myth.
Yeah, but that is exactly part of what we should stop pretending not happened. Prople really don't like to admit - these high powered people and "heroes" were massive unethical assholes. Instead, we take their own word about themselves and about their enemies as gospel.
And I think the way we tiptoe around it and refuse to admit dynamics and acts involved is related to why we can't deal with contemporary narcissists either.
And what it does is that it is disadvantaging honest people, because they learn about how it really works only after it costed them.
>I found the bigger issue to be the stuffing supposedly neutral comitee with friends in dispute with Leibniz, so that they rule your way....
I certainly don't agree with this, but that is because my ethics are informed by a culture in which these things are considered bad. I believe there are cultures in which it is the way things are done, and in my readings of earlier centuries their ethics were not ours.
>These and others are major assholery issues, major ego issues.
There is a particular relatively famous programmer that I think of when I think 'asshole programmer', back when I used to go to conferences I would see him get up and tear down medium level programmers during their sessions. I don't want to say his name in case I ever have to confront him, as I like to keep my powder dry. I have met other programmers that were just as big jerks, although without this guy's accomplishments.
Obviously the programmer in question accomplishments pale in comparison to those of Newton. So I believe if I met Newton I would think - what an asshole!! but I would also somehow feel his contributions to the world did something to make up for his social inadequacies. So I guess I'm saying when I get my time machine after checking kill Hitler off my bucket list I probably won't be going to punch Isaac Newton in the nose for second place.
>And we even could avoid whole dicussion here, had people were not insistent on "just a slow to make friends".
Yes we could have avoided whole discussion here, if we just agreed with your viewpoint. But I don't agree, and so the discussion evidently needed to be had.
on edit: also the committee stuff sounds like a lot of the stuff I read about malfeasance in academia so - again sounds like sort of garden variety asshole there.
They were not culture where this was considered "good". Earlier centuries their ethics were not ours, but especially these interpersonal competite issues were considered ethical issues by them. Hence people pissed off be these.
It is completely absurd to make up imaginary past ethical systems. I am all for looking at past standards, but make them actual past standards. The way you do it makes all involved sound dumb.
Moreover offtopic: sometimes genius 'misunderstood' by group of people is actually group of people having healthy boundaries and acting rationally. And the while conflict starts to make sense instead of comming accross as "people in past were ridiculous".
I don't know the specific of the Newton case and am not really vested in the issue. But I am midly amused by your definitive statement on cultures' take on interpersonal competitive issues over the course of mankind history.
While we are living in an era where what you consider actual standard are not uniformely regarded as such on the surface of the globe.
I am genuinely interested in knowing how you could arrive at such an opinion ?
( regarding They were not culture where this was considered "good" and these interpersonal competite issues were considered ethical issues by them. )
I was in much better environment with much better programmers.
The programmer you mention was not a norm. He was an issue, collective inability to cut his shit off was issue. And apparently his behavior ended up normalise among programmers you know, precisely because people around you were not able to set boundaries on them.
But it was not him being neuro-atypical, was not "slow to make friends", you are talking about bullies in environment that is enabling it.
Let's call it power trip and bullying instead of absurd euphemisms.
And that bullying is not considered normal or acceptable by our general society either.
He took more than the average amount of glee in executing counterfeiters, and did up his apartments in red. Edgar Allan Poe couldn’t have written it better.
This example[2] generates a 4898×7711 png compared to a 1270×2000 jpg from the download link[3].
[1]: https://github.com/lovasoa/dezoomify
[2]: https://ophir.alwaysdata.net/dezoomify/dezoomify.html#https:...
[3]: https://images.lib.cam.ac.uk/content/images/MS-ADD-03969-001...