Talk:Isaac Newton/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Dates impossible?

"It is also claimed that the tree was replanted in front of the council buildings in Grantham, which is unlikely, considering that they were built over 300 years after Newton's death."

Since Newton died in 1727, wouldn't (over) 300 years after his death be sometime after 2027?

Help Needed Please

I have a project due on Newton tomorrow and i have no clue about him. If anyone can help with the questions below please repost asap.

- What language did he study in school? - What were the names of three famous people he studied? - Who encouraged Newton to publish his book? - What was the name of his most important book? - What are the three subjects covered in the book? - What was the unfortunate event that occurred in 1693? - How did Newton change his life in 1695? - What were the three areas of science where Newton made his most outstanding investigations? - Where is Sir Isaac Newton's grave located?

thank you so much!

Hope you managed it because all of that is ridiculously easy to find online. --JamesTheNumberless 10:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Pure speculation?

From the article: "During this time he obtained the confessions he needed and while he could not resort to open torture, whatever means he did use must have been fearsome because Newton himself later ordered all records of these interrogations to be destroyed." The "must have been fearsome" bit bothers me a little, as I don't see any evidence backing this up; it seems like speculation to me. Also, when mentioned in the same sentence as not being able to "resort to open torture", it seems like he used "closed" torture or some other cruel means of extracting confessions. Again, this seems unsubstantiated. Any ideas?

--Lord Shah 23:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I've had to correct vandalism on this page three times over the last 24 hours...I suggest locking the article from editing for a bit? I don't know, it's fine either way, I guess.

I've noticed this happens with EVERY page on the main page, not just featured articles. if you look at the history its ridiculous. I suggest that ALL featured articles are locked for the duration of their stay on the front page, its so lame that it has to be reverted every 10 seconds. --Wesman83 18:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No. See User:Raul654/protection Raul654 18:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Birthdate, Marriages, and the South Sea Company

I read in Slashdot (ehem) that he was a virgin.

Didn't he lose a fortune in the South Seas Company bubble? -- Davidme

I heard he wasn't born on Christmas, but his parents put down December 25th as all their childrens' birthdays to protest Cromwell's abolishment of Christmas. True or Urban Legend?

Some non-religious people have attempted to combine conformity and rebellion by celebrating Isaac Newton's birthday. But it is doubtful that Isaac Newton was born on Christmas Day. Isaac's Anglican parents listed December 25th on the birth certificates of all their children as a protest against the anti-Christmas Cromwell government.[1])

-- Xiaopo's Talk 01:10, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)wow! thanx! i really needed that:].............

My source for reverting the date change is Richard Westfall, Never at Rest ISBN 0-521-27435-4 page 40. Ancheta Wis 17:04, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He in fact was never married. The losing a fortune in the South Seas Company is an Urban Legend and the the fact about his parents giving all their children a December 25th birthdate is an untrue fact wfedczuk@yahoo.com

Later life/Biography

Surely the section "Later life" comes under "Biography"?--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo|TALK]] 01:11, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I found a large part of "Biography" titled "Newton on Optics" that wasn't about optics. So I divided it up into two more sections. I'll change "Biography" into "Early Life" for now. -- Brutannica

On the topic of optics I was wondering what it ment "ye bodkin " so I looked it up, there is a wikipedia on bodkins

Bodkin

--mikikona

Dates and calendars

The current opening makes clear the difference between Newton's birth and death dates in the Julian and Gregorian calendars. However, the next sentence mentions the date of publication for Principia without indicating which calendar is being used. I'm guessing we need a statement that the rest of the dates in the article are all Gregorian dates. But how to do this without being too obtrusive - a comment in small text italics at the top? an asterisked footnote on the next date used? or perhaps a small right aligned sidebar, like an infobox. -- Solipsist 19:17, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Footnote formatted per Manual of Style. Ancheta Wis 21:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Secret meanings in the bible

I modified the sentence to be more neutral. Petrvs

An editor added the following paragraph which has POV problems

Newton attempted to find secret meanings within the Bible. His attempts were not successful, as it was impossible without modern computers.

I can't remember exactly, but it seems likely that Newton did look for secret meanings in the Bible. The problem is that most people would then continue - His attempts were not successful, as there is no secret meanings to be found. If someone can come up with an NPOV phrasing, it is probably worth including in the article. -- Solipsist 19:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How about, his attempts were inconclusive, as the scale of computation involved in completing his analysis was so great as to be virtually impossible, before the invention of the computer. The key word there is inconclusive rather than uncuccessful. Also, it is not clear whether he looked for the messages in order to find them or in order to determine that there weren't any. As a completely biased observation, most people who look for hidden meanings in the Bible are doomed to fauilure because they've already failed to spot the very very obvious meanings written and repeated, in plain Greek. --JamesTheNumberless 11:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Childhood

The spurious sentence about being a childhood prodigy reminded me that he really didn't excel in school until after he beat up an older boy. Also he built a lot of fun toys, using a guide book given to him. More relevantly, he was a very poor shepherd, and his mom and stepfather concluded that he shouldn't remain in that field. Probably these stray facts could be collected into a paragraph sometime. Ancheta Wis 22:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

With or without the sheep puns? --Instant Classic 21:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've read that Newton's parents wanted him to be a farmer. --Petrus 15:34, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Yes but he made a very poor one. He ended up in court for letting his animals wander through not keeping his fences in good repair. He gave it up as soon as he could convince his parents to let him return to school. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Storey vs. Storer

Can anyone fact-check the Susan Storer/Anne Storey change? a google search turns up both as having no link to newton. time to go to the old paper and ink. Bonus Onus 03:28, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the way it can be.--66.65.63.154 16:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Too Editorial?

This is from the 3rd paragraph of the main article:

He was quite simply the greatest scientist in the world. Ever. No-one would challenge his basic laws governing the universe until Einstein, and even then his ideas only apply if you're travelling on a beam of light or if you're out in deep space.

Is it just me or is the a little too editorial? This is hardly an objective observation about Isaac Newton. Perhaps it should be changed?

Nigelquinine 00:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is one of the few cases where hyperbole is close to fact. Newton may not have been the greatest scientist in the world ever but it is difficult to think of another who could come so close to filling that position. He fundamentally changed our worldview and over 300 years later, despite advances in scientific knowledge that have improved upon some of his work, we still live in a fundamentally Newtonian world. There are many people who have done admirable work in Science but anyone who studies the History of Science will quickly come to realise that Newton really was in a class of his own. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Nigel's comment. This is not a neutral entry, but a hagiography. The mosy important scientist in history? Would have to say Ptolemy, though Galen comes a close second. His scientific work is of the very first degree, and he is one of the most important scientists ever but I think objectivity is being strained here. -- Emre Yigit 19:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Brilliant scientist, TERRIBLE teacher -- first hand accounts described his lectures as extremely dull. AHHHH, irony lives on...--64.12.116.6 03:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Newton may have been the "greatest scientist in the world". I'm not about to deny it. However this does not belong in the article. Also Einstein's ideas have far more reaching application than "only if you're travelling on a beam of light or if you're out in deep space." That's plain nonsense and wouldn't really be relevant even if it weren't. Jimp 15Dec05

What if yo usaid most influential scientis in history, most influential man since Jesus/in modern history. he was surely all that. And this business about Ptolemy or Galen being more important, I'd be impressed if it could be substantiated and proven more than opinion. I've also heard that his lectures were intentionally difficult and that he meant to off-set his students. Supposedly he could be a real prick. It would interesting to see what research one could do on that subject.[poster didn't sign]

To the preceding poster: I would try to copyedit your comment if I could understand it.

I don't think Newton's "laws" have ever really been conclusively proven, although I don't doubt the man's immensurable dignity. I mean, I could say we live in a Copernican world, couldn't I? Peace out.--66.65.63.154 17:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I by "laws" you mean the Axioms of the Laws of Motion have never been conclusively proven, then all of physics must be reconsidered. In response to the origonal question, I see no problem with praising Newton, but I should be in a formalized tone.--172.130.166.105 01:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Religion

Under Religion I read: "Despite his fame as one of the greatest scientists ever to have lived, the Bible was Sir Isaac Newton's greatest passion." This is about as crazy as to write "Despite his fame as one of the greatest scientists ever to have lived, Sir Isaac Newton loved his wife." The prejudice that you have to be somewhat stupid to believe in the Bible should be avoided in the Wikipedia. --O'Barend 10:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the idea is that although he became famous for his scientific studies, it was his study of the bible that was most important to him. The remarkable thing being pointed out in the sentence you quoted isn't that Newton was a religious man and a scientist; the remarkable thing is that Newton's religious study was more important to him than the scientific theories that made him famous.

For instance, the sentence "Despite his fame as one of the greatest physicists ever to have lived, Newton's greatest passion was for biology" would a fair amount of sense (if it were true) and clearly isn't casting aspersions on biology. Aquillion 19:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

You make a good point, but it still seems that a POV is being inserted when the Bible and science are treated with such exclusivity as they are in this article. Newton's passion for the Bible is only surprising if one believes that such exclusivity exists, and the existence of the exclusivity is far from established, so there is impermissable POV at work here. A.T. Cook 17:13, 14 July 2005

I think it's fair to say something along these lines about his interest in the Bible, just there is no reason to mention that this was despite his being a great scientist. One of the things that made him a great scientist was being inquisitive and having an open mind for new ideas or interpretations of existing dogma (scientific, religious, whatever), in some cases this lead to breakthroughs, in others it led to dead ends (at least for him). Sfnhltb 22:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Good point there by Aquillion, however, we can't ignore the perception that some people have of the Bible and Science being opposite forces and the possibility of people interpreting this the wrong way. Better might be "Despite being best known for his achievements in physics and mathematics, Newton himself was more passionate about his Bible scholarship, for which he is far less well known" --JamesTheNumberless 11:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge with The Parable of the Solar System Model

What do you guys think of this? So far there's been no luck hunting down a reference. Is it a good candidate to be merged? Do you think it is factually accurate? --Davril2020 19:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I've left a long comment on the Parable's talk page. I stongly oppose merging this into any Netwon article for the reasons given in that comment. There's too much questionable about it, and too little (ie, nothing -- at least that I can make out) to support it. ww 19:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

References section

Many of those books and websites listed under "Further reading" and "External links" would be better classified as References. I already moved all the ones I knew were being used as references to the section; if anyone knows that more are so, please move them accordingly. --DanielNuyu 05:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

"The British always get their priorities right!" - unnecessary invective. I've removed this an edited the preceding sentance appropriately. -- ae, 3 May 2005

Pets?

Someone wrote about Newton's pet animals, but I'm not sure as to whether it was vandalism; I do recall reading something about Newton's pets, but I am not sure if it is fact.

Simpsons Reference

I recall that scene as Hendrix playing tennis with Ben Franklin (not Newton, as stated in the article). I could be wrong about that. Does anyone else know for sure?--JW1805 8 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty certain Hendrix was playing with Bach, which for obvious reasons makes more sense.

• I'm going to go ahead and remove this from the article (unless somebody comes up with definite proof that it really was Newton). --JW1805 05:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Pulse equation?

In the article Caloric theory#Successes there is a reference to Newton's pulse equation. Any idea what this is? Cutler 20:30, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Vegetarian?

The cat has since been removed, but for future reference, there doesn't seem to be very much evidence that Newton was a conscious vegetarian. --Fastfission 14:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Asexual?

In the Asexuality article, it claims that Newton was believed to be an asexual. Yet there is nothing in this article backing that claim up. Does anyone have any sources on that? Should it be added to the article? Ryan 06:13, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Newton's only known "romantic" friendship was with the stepdaughter of his landlord in Grantham when he was a boy -- and we only have her word on that. There is no other evidence of any kind that Newton had any female close friends or lovers. Interestingly we can also rule out male lovers because not even his enemies accused him of having any -- and Newton may not have had many firm friends but he certainly had a lot of firm enemies who would have jumped on such an accusation if there had been even the slightest rumour that it was so. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

While it makes sense for him to be listed in the Asexuality article as there is a reasonable position that he might have been, it's not really particularly notable as far as his personal history is concerned, particularly with the amount of encyclopedic information that should have a far higher priority on this page. Comparatively if we were talking about Oscar Wilde then his Homosexuality would be encyclopedic as it was a significant factor in his life and work. Sfnhltb 21:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It is commonly supposed that he died a virgin, and there's even a (probably apocryphal) legend that he claimed on his deathbed that it was his greatest accomplishment. Although this would be pretty difficult to verify, probably his entry should at least mention the possibility. Eric Olson 21:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Mulla Nasruddin writes 13 Dec 05, Some people believe that Newton was a sorcerer and an alchemist in which case he would have been celibate anyway as this would have been a pre-requisite. Issac Newton The Last Sorcerer by Michael White Fourth Estate London 1997

There's speculation in one of the biographies I've read (Berliner?) that he was gay. The evidence doesn't seem to have convinced a lot of other people.--Bcrowell 21:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Cat flap

It is pretty well established that Isaac Newton invented the cat flap, but the cat flap article could use better references for this. I've started some discussion at Talk:Cat_flap and I'm guess that some folks here are reading the right biographies.

In particular it would be nice to determine the approximate year of invention and where. The story about not wanting to interupt optics experiments seems plausible and could pin point it to sometime in his twenties, perhaps during the two years he spent back at Woolsthorpe ~1665-1667. -- Solipsist 07:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I do believe I do believe that Isaac Newton was the shiznit and will continue to be one of the most Impactual men of the millenia. Thank yoiu and have a nice day. although that would be cool if he invented the cat flap, I dont think he did?...

• Inventor of the Cat Flap: Actually, I heard that cats preferred the more comfortable design developed by Leibniz, and that the science of feline ergonomology was marred by decades of bitter dispute between the masters. -Brokenfixer 20:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, it wasn't until Schrödinger that the cat flap really came into its own. --Jason0x21 16:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Leibnitz Newton priority dispute: Mathematicians have catfights? Clarityfiend 01:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a joke that originated(??) in the book "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency" by Douglas Adams

Psychotic Episode

Newton apparently had a paranoid psychotic episode at age 51, but this isn't mentioned, though the article does mention supposed autism on pretty thin evidence.--Jack Upland 07:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

There has been some diagnosis_at_a_temporal_remove which accounts for this episode as mercury poisoning, occasioned by his alchemical researches. My own sense is that he was before and after a rather single mindedly straightforward person before and after. Presumably this supports the acute mercury poisoning explanation, and perhaps even the Ausperger's as well, though from the obverse reasoning. Maybe someone with expertise (eg, a professional qualification) in either mercury poisoning or mild autism/Ausperger's might chime in briefly? 68.161.41.143 20:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

edit was actually by ww 22:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC); I got logged out somehow

Isolated psychotic episodes do occur. But I question whether any such posthumous diagnoses should be included at all - they tend to be dubious and have the quality of pet theories (i.e. pick their favourite condition rather than one that fits the evidence). Unfortunately this is a fad in popular history currently. But perhaps Occam's razor would suggest he was just an 'absent-minded professor'.--Jack Upland 05:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Conflict with Leibnitz over the calculus

The page reads:

Although Newton had worked out his own method before Leibniz, the latter's notation and "Differential Method" were superior, and were generally adopted throughout the world. Though Newton belongs among the brightest scientists of his era, the last 25 years of his life were marred by a bitter dispute with Leibniz, whom he accused of plagiarism.

I think this representation is a little bit more on the pro-Newton side than a strictly neutral article ought to be. Newton probably worked out a functional calculus before Leibniz, but in fact he did not publish his method until he discovered that Leibniz was on the verge publishing his own. Publishing is how such things are measured in the scientific community, even then; Newton's behavior was at least a little childish (hoping to perfect the theory entirely before sharing it with the world, thus opening it to being advanced by others) and at worst quite selfish and petty. In addition, much of Newton's behavior during his conflict with Leibniz was quite bad. While I'm not advocating for painting a dark picture of Newton on his biography page, I think this whole issue was glossed over a little too easily. Any comments before I introduce changes?

Also while it's true Leibniz's methods are the ones universally in use today, this was not true during Newton's lifetime--that could probably be clarified in the excerpt above. Eric Olson 22:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

What does the [See Shapley] at the end of the quotation mean? --BozMo[[user talk:BozMo||talk]] 11:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I too agree with this opinion, if it means anything. 65.172.9.162 04:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Eric (and others): Actually, at the time, publication was not the way such things were established. In fact, publishing and peer review and all that was barely embryonic. Even publishing wasn't much more than an infant. The Royal Society's paper publishing program was among the first -- if not the first -- systematic scheme. Memory fails as to this priority.

In mathematics, for instance, it was common to claim (often in private correspondence) a result and challenge someone else to independently work it out. Or even to pose a problem for which one had already worked out the answer as a challenge. Recall Fermat's notable lack of publications, for example. His famous last theorem didn't even, it seems, make it into a private letter to anyone, as its only recorded existence was as a marginal note found by his son after his death in a volume of Diophantes. Pascal thought it perfectly sensible to abandon mathematics, and indeed all scientific work, in his prime. His reasoning was religious, though, and resulted in some glorious French prose; it was thus rather different than the reasoning used by Fermat and others who kept working but didn't publish. Newton's behavior in not publishing much of his work (and not promptly publishing that he did publish) was not exceptional at all -- at the time. Recall that Hailley had to arrange for the financing to publish the Principia. distubing to think what might have been had Hailley been less skilled at fund raising. From our persepective some hundreds of years later this lack of concern about "getting it out" and "establishing priority" is astonishing and nearly incomprehensible, but that's our problem, not theirs.

As for priority in the invention of calculus, it seems to me pretty clear that Newton had worked out the fundammental theorem of the calculus (inverse relation between differentiation and integration) and many actual techniques much earlier than Liebniz -- bya decade or more if I recall the dates rightly. Whether L learned (by rumor or gossip or such) that Newton, or someone, had done such work on a visit to London and that's what started him off on the hunt is, as near as I can make out, somewhat obscure. Something like this was in the air. Wallis, Barrow, Pascal and Fermat are among those who came close in the decades before Newton made his (private) breakthrough. Newton and his partisans made such claims for a long time, but it was a vehemently argued controversy for quite a long time, and the truth of claims made in heat, as these, are often hard to get at.

Neither Liebniz nor Newton covered themselves with glory in matters of full disclosure and fair dealing. Even trancendant geniuses can be petty disputants, and just generally petty. On the English side, Newton seems to have stage managed claims and counterclaims behind the scenes, trying it seems to seem above the fray. In his turn, Liebniz concealed some important philosophical positions for fear of offending others or suffering problems (Russell's account of this is quite scathing).

It's very clear that Newton's fluxion notation was used far beyond any sense (most of a hundred years if my memory is correct) in England -- out of misplaced loyalty to a native son. It is said to have retarded or even smothered English mathematics (at least in analysis) for near three generations. Liebniz' notation was used almost everywhere else because it made life easier for those not in Newton's intellectual class. L's differential approach (and so notation) was not finally discovered to be mathematically acceptable until Abraham Robinson ("non-standard analysis", if memory serves) showed that it was actually equivalent to the delta-epsilon approach developed, in a spirit of rigor and Berkelean horror at the ghosts of vanished quantities, by Weierstrass et al in the mid 1800s.

Perhaps some of this can be worked into the article? 68.161.41.143 21:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

edit actually by ww 22:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC); the auto log out elf struck again

It's clear from their private papers that Newton and Leibniz came accross calculus independently. Leibniz approached it by way of integration, which he took to be in some sense a generalized infinite series, and Newton started from derivatives. Moreover, calculus actually seems to have been invented by the Kerala school in late medieval India, so perhaps Madhava of Sangamagrama could be mentioned. Fermat also went pretty far. Gene Ward Smith 01:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Dubious remarks regarding light

The article makes a couple of dubious remarks regarding Newton's work on light.

First, it says that Newton could not explain diffraction. This is untrue—he had an explanation for diffraction in his Opticks (albeit not an especially quantitative one, nor is it very convincing to a modern reader). If I remember correctly, he said that when light strikes a body it excites heat vibrations in the surrounding aether (a medium he postulated for the heat radiation, which he thought of as physically distinct from light per se), and that these interacted with the light in order to cause diffraction and the various interference phenomena described in the Opticks.

Second, it says that he was the first to explain the rainbow. If I recall correctly (I was reading about it a few months ago in The Rainbow: From Myth to Mathematics by eminent mathematical historian Carl Boyer), it wasn't fully and correctly explained until the 19th century (it has to due with interference along a caustic curve). Another source that backs my memory is http://physicsweb.org/articles/review/15/11/1/1

—Steven G. Johnson 06:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

My sense of this is that Newton was first to establish that white light included colored light and that colored light could be combined to make white light. This was the first progress in accounting for colored light (and indeed white light) beyond mere speculation. Quite a lot followed from this in matters of eye function and such. Much of it speculative of course until the last century and perhaps a bit before, but still -- mostly the first progress of any kind in these matters since the Greeks.

In the sense that white light (well, more or less) from the sun could thus be accounted (correctly) the source of the raimbow's colors, he deserves some priority credit on the origin of the rainbow question. . 68.161.41.143 21:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

edit actually by ww 22:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC); yet another victim of the auto log out elf

Alchemist

I've read (somewhere!) that he was an obsesive alchemist, but the article doesn't mention it??? --Concrete Cowboy 10:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Erm, its mentioned in the lead para and at several places throught the article. See for example a couple of paras before the 'Gravity and motion' section. There might be some more that could be said on the subject, but although he spent a fair bit of time on alchemy, I'm not sure that he achieved much of significance. -- Solipsist 11:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to know what he achieved, because (unlike his physics/astronomy) he never published any of his alchemy work. But the way I was taught in history of science classes is that he spent about as much time on alchemy, and that much time over again on Biblical/theological studies (his Chronology is the main result we have from that), as he did on what we know him for. Someone should definitely added some material on Newton's alchemy; I'll get to it eventually if no one does, but I'm trying to rewrite the Work sections of Kepler right now.--ragesoss 14:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added this article to Category:Alchemists. Maybe it was omitted because Category:Isaac Newton is a subcat of Category:Alchemists; but (a) the same argument would apply to all other supercats of Category:Isaac Newton; and (b) even if it is, policy on listing articles in a supercat allows for this kind of exception. Joestynes 14:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Mulla Naruddin writes 13 December 2005: There is a book called "The Last Sorcerer' by Michael White ((Fourth Estate London) which is actually quite good and discusses this. It hints that the Clarke family (who adopted Newton) were apothercarists who may have been alchemists and Newton was initiated and sponsored by them. There are clues in the raising of funds for sending him to Cambridge that he had already been trained and chosen by a secret brotherhood of some kind. Upon arriving in Camridge at the age of 17 (it says 19 on the main article) in 1661 he immediately set up experiments with light which were way ahead of his time. The book has some good references and could be a pointer for further research.

I don't believe that he should be described as an alchemist in the intro, however I note that Solipsist has reverted my deletion. The point is that Newton's fame does not rest on this and the current fascination is faddish. Of course, it should be mentioned in the article, as should personal details etc - but the intro should be reserved for the reasons that Newton is known and the reasons that warrant his inclusion in Wikipedia.--Jack Upland 00:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Jack Upland makes a reasonable point. One might also add that, although he spent a significant amount of time on alchemical research, Newton didn't actually publish much on alchemy and quite possibly didn't actually achieve much either. On the other hand, he might feature highly in the 'list of notable alchemists' and he was probably more of an alchemist than an inventor and probably more of a theologian than either of those two. I'm not that worried about whether 'alchemist' should appear in the lead para, but it probably shouldn't be reduced to just physicist and mathematician, which would be a modern POV view of his life. -- Solipsist 15:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is better to have a 'modern POV' than a perverse one, which is what the intro leads to. We would not describe Shakespeare as a farmer or Hitler as an artist in their intros, though this would be true.--Jack Upland 05:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Following that reasoning through, we should also remove the part that says he was an inventor. For after all, that aspect of his life is not well known in modern times either. No, I think that a well rounded introductory paragraph should mention that he was an alchemist, an inventor, and an extremely effective Master of the Mint. To do otherwise simplifies the characterisation of this extremely complex man almost to the level of stereotyping him. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well put. I agree fully with Derek.--ragesoss 05:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I too agree with Derek! Newton being an inventor and Master of the Mint should not be mentioned in the first sentence! But fortunately the Mint isn't mentioned in the intro anyway!!!! These things - like alchemy - are interesting and relevant, and should be mentioned in the article, as they are, but the intro is not a place to deal with 'extremely complex' and 'not well known' sides of the subject. Besides, you haven't really dealt with the argument that such an intro misrepresents the significance of Newton and the reason for his inclusion in Wikipedia. Many people have sides of their life that they aren't famous for, but we don't foreground that. Equally, there are many people who privately dabbled in the occult - who don't rate an article. Do you object to that???--Jack Upland 23:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could agree with the import of your comments, but I can't. Newton was a great minter -- as good as anyone you'll find anywhere.--66.65.63.154 17:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny, but very, very wrong.

Uh.. I don't know a lot about Newton, but I DO know that he wasn't assasinated by the McDonald's Grimmace, as mentioned here. I'm not sure of the events of his death.. maybe someone can correct this?

Edit: I found that hilarious. Also the earlier rewrite of the entire article to be 'blah blah blah gravity blah blah blah' cracked me up.

It was all simply stupid childish vandalism. andy 17:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I found the "blah blah blah gravity blah blah blah" rewrite to be quite insightful. Very well written piece. 129.15.127.254 15:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

Why are there two footnotes numbered 8 ? - Bevo 16:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• There are two sources for the same sentence or block of text referenced in the article.--Adam 21:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't understand. I would think that you would need unique numbers to refer to specific footnotes. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footnotes - Bevo 22:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Judaism

Was Newton an ethnic jew? Mother named Hannah, father called Isaac, he himself is Isaac. Not the average christian names. Very many scientists and mathematicians are jews, so it would be not suprising. -- Anon

Nope, these are just average 17th century Protestant Christian names. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Heck, tastes change. Beverley used to be a man's name. Clarityfiend 01:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Astrologer?

Is there any evidence for the first-mentioned occupational assertion that Newton was an astrologer? If not, it should go. I'd list mathematician first, at any rate. Major Danby 01:13, 16 December (UTC)

Yes, read his biography. He was a first-rate astrologer.Teddy 01:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No, there is not evidence, and it is generally held by most historians of astrology that he was actually quite hostile to the subject. For example, see Nick Campion's book Astrology, History and Apocalypse. --Chris Brennan 04:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

See this link on Newton and Astrology at the University of Utrecht NL. It answers all such claims quite convincingly [2]. Quote

During this interview, Newton confided to Conduitt that his interest in science had first been roused in the summer of 1663, when, as a young student at Cambridge, he purchased a book on astrology at the midsummer fair at Stourbridge. Baffled by the incomprehensible astrological diagrams and calculations in this work he then studied some books on geometry and calculus (such as by Euclid, Frans van Schooten and René Descartes) and was “soon convinced of the vanity & emptiness of the pretended science of Judicial astrology”.[by his nephew John Conduitt ] Lumos3 15:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I just posted that link yesterday in the astrology discussion below! Bwithh 15:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Reference style

Could someone fix up the references? The inconsistent citation style and static numbering of the footnotes drives me nuts. Fredrik | tc 17:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Astrology & Isaac Newton: Many Sources Prove He Practiced Astrology and Alchemy

Fredrik, this is Wikipedia - and NOT a college paper. You continue to insert POV bias by ignoring obvious history and you are being requested to stop with your "static numbering of footnotes" at the beginning of a subject's introduction. Theo 19:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What kind of nonsense is this? - Fredrik | tc 19:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Fredrik, you know exactly what it is that you have been doing making POV insertions/deletions based on your own bias. If you must make edits then discuss them FIRST before playing the role of censor and please halt treating other factual information on subject matter as "nonsense". You have been trolling the English and Swedish Wikipedia sites constantly and making repeated POV insertions. You are being asked kindly to stop. Theo 19:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Trolling both sites constantly? I will not bother to comment further on this BS. Fredrik | tc 20:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and you also continue to maintain that subjects like Brahe, Kepler, Copernicus and Newton were not astrologers when they obviously were and wrote astrological texts as well in their own names while practicing the science. Astrology and astronomy are one and the same art to these lumnaries, and is not to be confused with the "sun-sign" astrology you apparently think is the scientific astrology these and other well-known astronomers practice. Suggest you either study this first, or refrain making such POV insertions to the opposite. Theo 20:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I think an easy way to resolve this dispute would be to quote and cite a specific astrological text that Newton wrote, if such a source exists. Nonetheless, the standard literature seems to suggest that Newton was not an astrologer.

Westfall's biography of Newton asserts that "[f]or a brief time, about 1663, he examined judicial astrology ... Astrology was never part of the curriculum." (p. 88) In stronger language, Cohen & Smith claim that "[h]e disdained the study of astrology, however, having concluded early on that there was no validity to predictions based on horoscopes." (p. 23)

Those are among the standard works on Newton, referred to me by a friend with an M.A. in philosophy of science. As sources go, I think the best way to cast doubt on them would be if you had a primary source -- that is, a work of Newton's own -- which contradicted them. --FOo 04:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

There's a good (and well-sourced) little page about Newton and astrology here - its like the first hit on google. The page says that by the end of the 17th century, astrology had already been rejected as a science and that Newton's introduction to judicial astrology in 1663 was both brief and negative, but did encourage his initial interest in science Bwithh 04:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Newton himself was a judicial astrologer; despite claims that he "flirted" with the science, and rejected it. It surprises none that conventional scientists continue to attempt to debunk Newton's own work in alchemy; of which astrology is a part. This also was connected to Newton's fascination with theology as well. This is supported by his fights with Edmund Halley, who represented conventional scientific views, and spoke negatively on the subject. Newton, in his response, he retorted, "Sir Halley, I have studied the matter; you have not!" Now, this source can be found in a number of books and articles on Newton: such as M. Gauquelin, "The Cosmic Clocks: From Astrology to a Modern Science", page 49,(Peter Owen, London, 1969. Also, the words of Newton himself confirmed that his illustrious scientific career was started by reading books on astrology. ON Aug. 31, 1726, shortly before Newton's death, he was interviewed by his nephew, John Conduitt (1688-1737), who was collecting biographical information on his famous uncle. Newton confided that his interest in astrology was first roused in summer 1663, when as a young student at Cambridge, he bought a book on astrology at the mid-summer fair at Stourbridge. He was baffled by the complex astrological diagrams & calculations in the book and began studying books on algebra and geometry. Newton's studies in alchemy - found among his unplublished papers, as they related to astrology and theology continue to prove that indeed, Newton not only practised the science, but was in correspondence with practicioners, both in England and in early America.Theo 21:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Theo's belief that Newton was an astrologer is not even one that is held by the contemporary astrological community. For example, the respected historian Nicholas Campion writes in his book Astrology, History and Apocalypse that Newton was "...deeply hostile to astrology in the form of the casting of horoscopes". In the next paragraph Campion points out that that statement which is attributed to Newton ("Sir Halley, I have studied the matter; you have not!") "Never happened" and that "The phrase appears to have been made up in a biography of Newton in relation to some theological matter, and was applied to astrology probably in this century, since when it's been quoted in many books." -Nick Campion, Astrology, History and Apocalypse, CPA Press, London, 2000. Pgs. 69 & 70.

Yes, he was - to the popular form of astrology practiced in his day. Listen, if you must quote "sources" like this Chris, please do so with the proper intent. Newton was hostile to "sun-sign" astrology, and a form of this was practiced in England in his time the same way that it was popularized in America in the early 20th century. I am also hostile to this "practice of astrology" and Newton was to the same form in his era. As for the statement that Newton's retort to Halley - "never happened" - there sure where many, including Newton, who justify that he indeed did. Halley and Newton debated often. What you seem to be confusing Chris - is the two major forms of astrology - Judicial Astrology and Natural Astrology. The former was never codified by the Vatican. The second was. This is the reason for the continued confusion to this day. Newton, a deeply religious man, practiced the first, and was hostile to the latter. Suggest you do more reading and study. Theo 01:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Newton's "fights" with Halley over astrology are usually considered a myth by his biographers, similar to Galileo's "It still moves!" and Washington's cherry tree. We'd need a reliable source for that one -- one more reliable than Westfall, which would be hard to come by. I would suggest that primary sources -- Newton's own writings, or those of his correspondents -- would be needed to establish this.

The fact that Newton was, early in his life, briefly interested in astrology (and read books about it) seems undeniable. This does not make him an "astrologer" in the sense of someone who professes and regularly practices the subject. Many young people get into computer science after reading science fiction; that doesn't make them science-fiction writers. :)

Regarding alchemy and astrology -- if Newton connected the two, and corresponded positively with astrologers, then certainly we should include that fact with a cited source for it. Theo, do you have such a source? Ideally this would be a transcription of Newton's correspondence with some noted astrologer. Since we're trying to contradict the standard biographies with this claim, we really do need a primary source.

(FWIW, as a person with an on-and-off academic interest in the Western occult tradition, I'm not aware that astrology is usually considered part of alchemy. There are some relations between the two, chiefly involving the use of "astrological" symbols to denote elements (e.g. Mercury's symbol for the element mercury; the Sun's symbol for the element gold). But these symbols (and many other curious abbreviations) were commonplace among the learned.)

It's certainly the case that Newton had a lot of practices which would be considered unscientific and rather silly in a modern scientist -- including alchemy and apocalyptic theology. Nonetheless it isn't at all clear that judicial astrology was one of them. --FOo 04:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Newton practising astrology. He burned most of his charts, and notes - considering his experience with people stealing things from him. As for Newton himself. He gave interviews, but was very careful in them considering his relationship with the Church. He was very spiritual, believed that angels held up the universe, and was a fervent critic of the conventional views of the science and Church of his day regarding the geocentric views that persisted in his time. He confirmed the heliocentic beliefs held, by the way, but many astrologers, but condemned by the Church (see Galileo, another judicial astrologer). Newton's interview to his nephew just confirms what most of his now know. Even now, with more of his surviving correspondence, we know he seriously studied aclchemy - which one cannot do with studying astrology. The problem here is with those who with very much astrological knowledge, argue such matters from bias; as if trying to "prove" that astrology isn't really a science; yet cannot hide the fact that the very famous mathematicians ans astronomers, were, in fact, very good, qualified, and practicing astrologers: Ptolemy, Brahe, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Muller, Cardan, and Valentine Naibod, (1510-1593) professor of Mathematics at the University of Cologne, and in Padua. It is okay to understand and see the real history here. Astrologers contributed, and led the way to many of the most amazing discoveries in Earth history. We should be sharing this knowledge; rather than falling victim to over-flated egos, the smallness of political correctness, and cynical, narrow views. It's ok with me that Newton practiced astrology - that does not diminish the man with me. Why should it for anyone else?Theo 06:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Great! So, can you provide the needed sources as noted above? If this article is going to contradict the standard biographies, we need impeccable sources for doing so. E.g. if you can cite any works or papers of Newton's which endorse astrology. I realize that many of Newton's papers were not published in his time, but I believe they have largely been disclosed since then, so if there exist any primary sources in which Newton endorses astrology, surely you could provide them? --FOo 06:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Re/ Sources: I just did. In the above addition. I will do so here again. Try J. Conduitt (1688-1737) - Conduitt's notes can be found in "The Mathematical Papers of Issac Newton," in Vol. 1., Cambridge Univ. Press. - 1961-81) also, I cite, Andrew de Mosvre (1667-1754), or English physicist David Brewster (1781-1868). American science historian, Bernard Cohen traced back the Halley-Newton debate to Brewster. Other sources for Newton & astrology are: "Issac Newton and Astrology," by T.G. Cowling (Leeds University Press 1977) and to Newton's astrology, go to - "A Short Account of the History of Mathematics," by W.W. Rouse Ball, Fourth Edition, 1908.Theo 00:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Re/ Sourcing: I've sourced many times in my career. And what I find amusing is that some attempt to use sources as a personal way to confirm preconceived biased views. Just read the material, and let that draw the picture of the life of Newton. A very intense, and complex man, who was very private, and studied the mystical sciences. As I've said, Newton's practicing astrology, and alchemy does not take away from his genius. It only adds to it. Claiming Newton as some conventional beacon of proof that astrology, or alchemy, or even theology - is not real just does not stand up to scrutiny. Read the sources. Read the books published at Cambridge. Now, I hope allowing for preconceived biases, based on a lack of astrological knowledge, or hostility to "astrology," is not what is going on here, because that would be silly, and frankly, considering the amount of material out there for years concerning Newton - takes away from intelligent, and balanced discussion on the man. You have the Internet as a tool to find many, many of these excellent sources. Again, to confirm Newton's intense study and practice of alchemy, read: B.J.T. Dobbs, "The Foundation of Newton's Alchemy: The Hunting of the Greene Lyon," (Cambridge Univ. Press., 1975) or, by the same author (Dobbs) another title: "The Janus Face of Genius: The role of Alchemy in Newton's thought," (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1991)These materials, published at Cambridge University, which Newton attended, and is the most famous student - clearly show that he was heavily involved in judicial astrology, and alchemy, related to the Green Lion; which, those who practice serious astrology know, is based on theological use of astrological knowledge and principles. The weak attempts to separate Isaac Newton away from astrology are by those who either lack the knowledge of the Newton's intense work or by those who continue to hold hostile views of astrology - based on their confusing "astrology" with the popular "sun-sign astrology" - which all serious astrologers - including Newton - detested.Theo 00:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

So, it is common knowledge among those who know anything about Newton's life; that he studied alchemy, astrology, and theology - regularly. And, concerning alchemy; of course, astrology & theology are a fixed part; with detailed references throughout most, if not all the thousands of tracts out there. Newton undoubtedly read many of the texts translated from Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Arabic, and into Latin, and flooding Europe in his era, translated into English. Groups who studied and practiced astrology, and alchemy flourished in Newton's time. Newton studied & stated the laws that show that the cosmos is like "clockwork", but could not give proof of gravity - what held everything up - just the observed laws of gravity that all previous astrologer/astronomers observed, studied, and wrote (Copernicus, Kepler, etc.) Enjoy the sources listed. I can cite many other sources if anyone needs them. You know, It is okay to know that astrologers invented algebra, geometry and trigonometry. And that men like Brahe, Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo were astrologers. It is okay. There's no need to have fits over astrological practice. Not "Sun-sign astrology" - which is what all professional astrologers and mathematicians know to be silly, and a rather bad take on the real applied sience. In Newton's time, this form of sun-sign astrology was also "practiced," and he rightly found it insulting to his intelligence - considering the highly complex tasks required to calculate and interpret planetary motions relative to the Earth. Seeing Newton in this light adds to his genius. It doesn't take away from it. Theo 00:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

In 1936 an interesting lot came on the block at Sotheby's in London containing a cache of writings by Newton -- journals and personal notebooks deemed to be "of no scientific value." The winning bidder was the economist John Maynard Keynes. After perusing his purchase, Keynes delivered a somewhat shocking lecture to the Royal Society Club in 1942. "Newton was not the first of the age of reason," Keynes announced. "He was the last of the magicians." For Keynes' cache of "secret writings" made it clear that during the crucial part of Newton's scientific career -- the two decades between his discovery of the law of gravity and the publication of his masterwork, the "Principia Mathematica" -- his consuming passion was alchemy. Bunkered in his solitary live-in lab at the edge of the fens near Cambridge, Newton indulged in occult literature and strove to cook up the legendary "philosopher's stone" that would convert base metals into gold. And a penchant for the occult was not Newton's only quirk. He is reported to have laughed just once in his life--when someone asked him what use he saw in Euclid. He took to decorating his rooms in crimson. He stuck a knife behind his eyeball to induce optical effects, nearly blinding himself. He was a Catholic-hating Puritan who secretly subscribed to the Arian heresy, which denied the divinity of Christ. Newton was also given to endless feuding. (from http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Isaac%20Newton). Dr. Gabriel Gojon 01:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Considering his childhood, it is no surprise that Newton was consumed with some personal demons. Rejected by his father at such a young age is bound to have effects in later life and Newton was no different. Much of Newton's astrological work was done in secret; though he did share his findings with other astrologers. However, Newton burned a lot of materials before his death because he felt that others were stealing from him! This paranoia was founded; considering the money coming into scientific research at the time. Re/ his laughing at what he saw in Euclid - that could only be astrology and his monitoring the transits. He denied the divinity of Christ due to his reading of Islamic theological tracts on astrology. His feuding was against the materialistic scientists of the day and his belief that "science" was not adverse to theology - but that in fact, God regulated all things through the planets and stars.Theo 10:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The quote from Keynes about Newton being 'the last of the magicians' encapsulates what is obscured in this discussion. In Newton's time there was not a clear-cut distinction between 'magic' and science, astrology and astronomy, alchemy and chemistry. But - and this is also important - the work by he and his colleagues did lay the basis for such a distinction. Contrary to what occultists like to believe, mainstream science is not dogmatic. The history of science shows that orthodox views - however widely and tenaciously held - are overturned on a regular basis. By contrast, the occultists grimly hold onto whatever was believed in the past. They cite authorities such as Newton to bolster their beliefs rather than providing real evidence. Newton's mechanics can be easily demonstrated in a high-school laboratory - none of his occult calculations can.--Jack Upland 23:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned the likelihood that any of this has any bearing on the matters at hand is questionable, to say the least.--66.65.63.154 17:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Newton the plagiarist?

"Now, Robert Hooke, secretary to the Royal Society, contends that Newton did not himself invent the notion that an inverse-square force law governs planetary motion. "Newton stole the idea from me," he insists.

Hooke says that he had written to Newton about planetary and projectile motion in 1679, after developing his own "system of the world" to explain natural phenomena. He admits, however, that he was unable to master the mathematics required to show how elliptical orbits arise from an inverse-square law.

Acknowledging that Newton had succeeded in solving the mathematical problem but incensed that his own name is not mentioned in a section of Newton's treatise recently read at a Royal Society meeting, Hooke has demanded that Newton give him proper credit in the Principia for the inverse-square law.

According to Halley, however, Newton insists that he himself had discovered the inverse-square law during his studies of planetary motion. Unlike Hooke, Newton had not come upon it by accident, Halley says.

In the latest development, Newton appears to have gone through the existing manuscript to delete Hooke's name from any pages in which it had been mentioned. He has also informed Halley by letter that he intends to suppress the third part of the Principia" (from http://www.google.com/search?q=Newton+stole&hl=en&lr=&rls=SNYI%2CSNYI%3A2005-09%2CSNYI%3Aen)

Also see: http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm

Dr. Gabriel Gojon 02:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to read Leibniz article

This is just an invitation to read the article on Leibniz . This will be a humbling experience for many Newton admirer's.

Dr. Gabriel Gojon 08:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I just read the Leibniz introduction and its ghastly.

Yeah, that article needs cleanup. Borisblue 04:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Knighthood ?

What form/Order of Knighthood was Sir Issac Newton awarded ? Michael Drew 07:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Newton's applee

It says "from earlier entry". I suspect that can be removed. Eiler7 10:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Discoveries

Newton discovered by experiment that the plane at which a pendulum moves changes over the course of 24 hours. Because of this, he confirmed that the Earth was spinning. He also saw that the pendulum moved faster at the Equator than closer to the North and South poles, since the Earth isn't perfectly spherical. 70.111.251.203 15:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Newton Vs Einstein

• Newton : Revealed many latent events
• Einstein : Made complexity on latent things

Newton - a true Universalist ?

Gauss and Poicare be univeralist, Why not Newton??

Einstein was a much more influential scientist than Newton ever dreamed of being. Einstein accomplished so much more in his lifetime, and his discoveries were much more important.

OK why cann't both be considered as universelist and be included that word into the article.

Do you realize that universalism has a definite religious meaning? According to Merriam Webster online, one definition is "a theological doctrine that all human beings will eventually be saved". From your comments, I gather you mean something else. Clarityfiend 17:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement of 3 laws

I corrected some inconsistencies, e.g. no units given for force (newtons for godsake!), units for mass, units and abbrev. (m/s2) for acceleration; "First" capitalized, but "law" not, different tense for 3rd law. Not sure that restating 2nd law (In other words...) adds anything, but left it in. Clarityfiend 01:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe the second law was originally written as F = dp/dt (Rate of change of momentum) which is correct in all circumstances; F = ma fails at high velocities due to relativity (Lachlan).

That's (almost) correct: I read somewhere that more precisely it was formulated as F*delta(t)=delta(p). It's also formulated like that in good textbooks. Anyway, it's easily verified that he certainly didn't state F=m*a, which is less general. I'll have a look at the article and correct it if needed. Harald88 10:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Leibniz?

The German mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz came, independantly to the same calculus discovery as Newton in 1675, yet Funk & Wagnalls encyclopedia doesn't even refer to Leibniz. I think this guy ought to get some credit. -The Inside Line

Leibniz is mentioned in the article so I don't know where you're coming from on this.--Jack Upland 01:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

About the Apple

Thanks to the Da Vinci Code, we have all become cospirators. The novel introduced the idea that Newton was one the Grand Masters of the Priory of Sion. It also gave reference to the Apple of Knowledge, that same apple that was the first step towards his theory on Gravitation. Let's assume that he was a Grand-Master; that would clearly make the choice of the apple make more sense: for it was an apple that made Adam and Eve see the truth, and made them descend from the sky, or Heaven, to Earth. I mean why an apple, why not an orange? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heshamzohair (talk • contribs) 16:40, 11 April 2006.

Perhaps because oranges don't grow that well in Woolsthorpe, Lincolnshire, whilst Newton's family home had an apple orchard. See the article for more. -- Solipsist 08:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This is fiction chasing myth!--Jack Upland 22:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Da Vinci Code is full of nonsense - the Priory of Sion is a well-known hoax. Bwithh 14:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

New Revalations About Newton

It is interesting to note that there is no metion of his work in alchemy throughout this article, even though he dedicated 20 years of his life to this forbidden pseudoscience. Also, there is no mention of how manuscripts now show that Newton thought the end of the world to be the year 2060. More research on the statements above, and other recent revalations about Newton can be found at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3217_newton.html -- Alexander

Alchemy is mentioned in the first line and there is a separate article devoted to "Isaac Newton's Occult Studies".--Jack Upland 01:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Citation

I have a citation for the "I study the bible daily quote" It's from this book: J.H. Tiner, Isaac Newton—Inventor, Scientist and Teacher, Mott Media, Milford (Michigan), 1975.)

I'm not really comfortable with dealing with footnotes- could someone please help? Borisblue 02:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, the citations needed about Chaloner and the counterfetiers can be found here in this book: http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryOther/HistoryofScience/?view=usa&ci=9780195300703

This is a great article

This is shininhg excample of how the excelent article should look likeDzoni 01:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Priory of Sion nonsense

• Given that the Priory of Sion is a well-known and by now quite tiresome hoax, I think the "Alleged Grand Master of Sion" succession chart/canker at the bottom of the article should be flushed - or is should we draw up succession charts for every imagined conspiracy theory? At most, the Priory of Sion could be mentioned briefly in the cultural references section. Bwithh 18:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Here is the key sentence from the Priory of Sion article: "When the "Secret Files" were exposed as a forgery by French researchers and authors, [hoaxster] Plantard acknowledged that the above list [of alleged Grand Masters of Sion] was a fraud." Bwithh 18:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I am going to submit the Grand Masters of Sion template for deletion Bwithh 18:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently its not a template but coded into each page. I will be adding helpful "Hoax" tags in case (as is always possible on wikipedia), the hoax information is not deleted according to consensus. Bwithh 19:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it's a template now. It probably should be nominated for deletion.--ragesoss 14:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Spelling mistakes

Sorry I cant log on but there is a spelling mistake in the "Newton and the counterfeiters" section

"As warden of the royal mint, Newton estimated that 20% of the coins taken in during The Great Recoinage were counterfeit. Counterfeiting was treason, punishable by death by drawing and quartering. Despite this, convictions of the most flagrant criminals could be extremely diffiucult to achieve; however, Newton proved to be equal to the task."

Newton a Rosecrucian ?

These men who contributed to humanity's progress WERE ROSICRUCIANS:

Newton, Scientist and discoverer of the Law of the Gravity (Source: www.rosicrucian-order.com/principal.htm)

Was Isaac Newton really a rose-cross brother? Who can help?

how could he let a girl slip out of his fingers just for his studies??????? that's not right:0

It is genuinely hard to ascertain:

(a)whether a person belonged to a secret society,

(b)what this actually entailed.--Jack Upland 04:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Mass - Energy equivalence in Newton's Opticks?

The discussion of Newton's Opticks makes the following claim:

The book is also known for the first exposure of the idea of the interchangeability of mass and energy: "Gross bodies and light are convertible into one another...".

This claim seems to miss Newton's point, since he considered light to be a very subtle form of matter. He was saying nothing more than gross bodies can be converted into subtle bodies and vice versa, which fits very well with what we see in his alchemical work. --SteveMcCluskey 00:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Isaac Archibald Newton?

I recently read a book by Eleanor Pemberly called "Isaac Newton: That Awesome Genius!" (1901, Shawn & Sons, Inc.) On pp. 231-236 she mentions Isaac Newton having the middle name "Archibald", and goes on to write that he was given this name by his mother in remembrance of her first love -- a roustabout by the name of Archibald MacAlister -- who died in a duel for her honor. Pemberly goes on to say that Newton later had this middle name excised from his official record due to his dislike of the name stemming from a boyhood humiliation at the hands of an Archibald Youngston. However, on his death bed he changed his will to reflect his growing desire to forgive his enemies and issued orders to reinstate "Archibald" as his middle name.

A fellow named "Ec5618" just reverted my edit, even though I supplied the source. I don't know if this kind of behavior is considered sporting in WikiPediaLand, but it's certainly considered bad form from where I come from! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monleyconstals (talk • contribs) 08:53 UTC, May 31, 2006

Please sign your work... and Google shows no hits at all [3]. Do you know Eleanor Pemberly's source? Stephen B Streater 09:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for my edit summary ('rem middle name "Archibald". No source'), as a source was in fact provided. However, since I was unable to verify the information, I was (and am) sceptical. A google search for "Isaac Archibald Newton" yields no results at all, suggesting that this middle name is false. All I could find was this page, about one Isaac Newton ARCHIBALD.

Also, if the man had in fact had the middle name removed legally, then his name was "Isaac Newton". Perhaps a short note concerning this Archibal episode is warranted, but I, for one, would prefer to see a source firsthand. -- Ec5618 09:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to sign. My apologies Streater.

Ec5618: Don't worry about it. You write: 'Also, if the man had in fact had the middle name removed legally, then his name was "Isaac Newton".' Yes, but Pemberly says that his butler Reginald, describing Newton on his deathbed, expressed his desire for his middle name to be reinstated. And, according to Pemberly, it was reinstated a few days before he expired.

I purchased this book from a seller on abebooks.com last year intending to give it to my nephew (who's a science nut and love's reading biographies of famous personages). However, I didn't end up giving it to him because of its word condition and the fact that pages were missing. I can't tell you anything else about the book that I can think of (unless you want me to quote passages and such). I uploaded the original photo the seller on abebooks used to advertise the book. The photo is here: [[4]]--Monleyconstals 12:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could upload the relevant passage too. Stephen B Streater 14:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's just a silly hoax and the picture is a poor Photoshop job, too. Deli nk 15:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Streater: I read your bio page and I'm impressed that you own a company and are English. You must be really smart. But I must say your presumption that I am as smart as you is a little bit too much. I don't know how to upload a book. How is it done. I am a high school dropout. I am not a genius like you or Newton. I would appreciate you telling me how I can upload the passages so that you will not doubt my sincerity.

As for you Deli nk, I think it is rude of you to accuse me of being a "silly" hoaxter. I am no such thing. I am a hardworking senior citizen, who tries to get by in life. I have no time, nor do I have any inclination to perform hoaxes. What is Photoshop? I think you owe me an apology, otherwise I will have to take this whole affair up with Jimbo Wales (that can't be his real name! does anyone have sources to prove that that is his real name?!).--Monleyconstals 19:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Update on the bad behavior of Wikipedians: A fellow named "Heron" just sent me an email telling me that I'm a hoaxer and that if I don't delete what I have written he will have me "blocked." It's an outrage. I'm telling the truth. Isaac Newton's middle name is Archibald! Whether I'm blocked or not it won't change the fact that you all have something against me for bringing to the public's attention Isaac Newton's middle name. If somebody would tell me how I can upload passaged from the book I would gladly do it.--Monleyconstals 20:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't send you an email, I typed a message on your User Talk page. I'm glad to see that you read it. --Heron 20:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. I'm new to Wikipedia and haven't yet absorbed the cultic language that is used here. As for Heron's unfounded charge that I am a hoaxer it inspired me to do a little research in what Heron stands for:

Heron

  (Lev. 11:19; Deut. 14:18), ranked among the unclean birds. The
  Hebrew name is _'anaphah_, and indicates that the bird so named
  is remarkable for its angry disposition. "The herons are
  wading-birds, peculiarly irritable, remarkable for their
  voracity, frequenting marshes and oozy rivers, and spread over
  the regions of the East."

Yes, Heron, you are a very angry man. And it hurts my feelings that people are being so unfriendly to me. I'm a high school dropout. I didn't get to go to Oxford and run a business like you all have. I work the night shift at the local McDonalds, and am lucky if they give me a free McNugget every once in awhile.

Now if someone could please explain to me how I can upload the passages I would be happy to oblige your request.--Monleyconstals 20:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with Heron that this is a hoax. You can be fairly sure that the libraries of Cambridge University and its colleges would have copies of most of the books and manuscripts ever published about Newton. Not every book will have been catalogued, but most of the Newton related books show up. You can try looking for this book yourself on their online catalogue. Needless to say, they have no books by an author named Pemberly and no books with Newton in the title published in 1901 (there are some unrelated books published in 1904).

More surprisingly, I'm not sure there is anyone with the surname Pemberly - Pemberton yes, but not Pemberly. That seems like a bold statement, but I tried searching the UK's 1901 census and only found one person with that surname, a maid called Annie Pemberly, at that could be a typo. There is of course Jane Austen's fictional location Pemberley, but that has an extra e. Perhaps the alleged author is American, but even then it seems unlikely if that surname is so uncommon in the UK. I'm less familiar with US genealogy searches, although this one suggests there weren't any Pemberlys in American at that time either - one of the main genealogy databases is named Pemberly however. Along with this lack of evidence is the implausible title for a book published in 1901, and the way that the lettering on the scan fails to show the noise or vignetting on the rest of the book cover. So it all adds up to a hoax as far as I'm concerned. -- Solipsist 21:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yet another person has refused to tell me how to upload pages from the book that I have on my desk right this second.

Solipsism (from the Latin ipse = "self" and solus = "alone") is the metaphysical belief that only oneself exists, and that "existence" just means being a part of one's own mental states — all objects, people, etc, that one experiences are merely parts of one's own mind. This view is first recorded with the presocratic sophist Gorgias

Well I can understand living in one's own little world, but believe it or not, Solipsist, Isaac Newton surely did not! He got out there and took a bite out of the world with his genius! Now I checked those pages you linked to, but I forgot to mention some crucial information. The book was printed in Australia in 1901. And as for the image not looking right, blame the guy who sold it to me because he took it.--Monleyconstals 22:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Isaac Newton surely did not! He got out there and took a bite out of the world. Erm, no he didn't. Try reading one of the genuine biographies recommended in the article. All of them will tell you he spent most of his childhood on his own, was notoriously reclusive whilst working in Cambridge, locked himself in his room for days at a time without eating, was often reluctant to publish his results and later lived a relatively quiet life in London with his niece. -- Solipsist 06:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Erm, no. He was a very active man. He looked at the apple because he was great, and hungry. The notion of Newton as a timid unworldly was promulgated by the Romantics, and it seems you've bought into it. It is an illusion. Newton was a titan. He was a lancerite if any man ever was. He stood on the shoulders of giants, which made him even taller.

Now I realize that I can't keep editing the Newton page without the approval of the administrators. In order for the admins to OK my edit they have to feel convinced that my source is unimpeachable. Fine. That's as it should be, and their demands reflect well on them. If someone would kindly inform me as to how I could go about supplying them with this evidence I would be so very thankful.--Monleyconstals 11:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not necessary to defame Newton to deal with this imposter - after all physics is as much part of the universe as Portobello Road. I happen to know psychically that our would-be contributor is in fact a baboon and - until the species discrimination policy is changed - such creatures are not permitted to edit Wikipedia, Archibald or no Archibald.--Jack Upland 10:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If I'm only psychically a baboon that is not enough to change my species. As long as my body is human I am considered to be human, and have the ability and privilege to contribute to this great endeavor called Wikipedia. Please take your sour grapes elsewhere before they rot.--Monleyconstals 11:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

As you are a baboon you don't understand English grammar - 'psychically' pertains to my knowledge not your nature.--Jack Upland 02:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, gentlemen, that's enough. Wikipedia policy on "baboons" is clear and I expect you to follow it. Any further uncivil comments on this matter will be refactored, edited or just plain deleted as per policy. Play nice. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Ross: Thank you for stepping in and attempting to defuse this situation. I think you'll agree with me that Mr. Upland is being mean and elitist towards me. I dropped out of high school when I was 16 because I had to take care of my family, and so I didn't get a very good education. I came on Wikipedia with the intention of learning new things from all the brilliant contributors. But this Mr. Upland is a bully. Making fun of my lack of education and dehumanizing me with a Hitler-esque glee by calling me a baboon. I think he should be ashamed of himself, and thank his lucky stars he didn't have to drop out of school to help his family. I think I'm going to give up trying to make you all see the light concerning Isaac "ARCHIBALD" Newton, and go my way.--Monleyconstals 03:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Priory of Sion, Da Vinci Code, and Other Works of Fiction

I think it would be appropriate to create a sub-section like ... Newton in Fiction. While the Priory of Sion and The Da Vinci Code are crap, Newton has seen an increased amount of attention due to these works. It should probably be noted somewhere (even if it's in big bold letters), "NEWTON IN COMPETELY UNTRUE CRAP." Batman2005 02:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[Proofread by --66.65.63.154 03:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)]

There are already 2 depositories of what is technically called "crap":

• The Uncyclopedia
• The Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia.

--Jack Upland 10:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

While you're right, and humorous, adding it to the article isn't lending credence to its truth, it's stating that his image and legacy is being affected by these new allegations and stories. We can mention that he's been brought into mainstream conversation again, without saying its true. Batman2005 22:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A subsection would be OK so long as it's more than Dan Brown.--Jack Upland 05:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah i just added a small bit at the end of his "Legacy" thing, I don't want to make it too obvious and make it seem like its a big part of his life or anything...just a note that shows taht he's still being talked about in popular culture today. Batman2005 03:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone might want to mention the very, very large presence of Newton in the Neal Stephenson 'Baroque Cycle' trilogy. While quite fictional, it isn't all crap, and much more deserving of mention than the DaVinci Code, IMHO. -- Stygmata

I completely agree with Stygmata... the Baroque Cycle, while quite an undertaking to finish in a reasonable amount of time, is a wonderful series, and one that has made me interested in Newton as well as many of the other historical characters. Much of the information on Wiki matches exactly what Stephenson has written. [And yes. So much better than Dan Brown's writing.] 69.163.192.191 04:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Emily (tigahs@yahoo.com)

Vandalism, further

The 5 :18 5/6/2006 edit is due to a vandal.

Death mints

Newton eventually proved to a court of competent jurisdiction

This is somewhat of a leap of faith. What we know more certainly is that the jury sided with Newton's prosecution. Were the standards of conviction the same as those we now assume (in England at least)? Were the juries immune to political interference from, perhaps, the royals themselves? Was this particular jury the paragon of reason? Do we know that? It rings false to say Newton proved about anything other than mathematics. I would prefer something like this:

Newton ultimately swayed a court of competent jurisdiction

enventually is also a badly coloured word: it makes it sound as if Newton kept arguing and arguing until he got what he wanted; it could easily have been true, but I don't sense that is what this sentence is attempting to impute. MaxEnt

Also, were conviction and sentencing distinct at that point under the law? If so, Newton convicted the counterfeiters, who were then sentenced to death by another authority. The sentence that read:

by the end, Newton had ten convicted dudes lined up to die 

is also a little off to my ear. It should say that Newton convicted ten people, all ten were subsequently sentenced to death by the 'death-sentence-justice', and the death penalty was later carried out on X of those ten inviduals. You can bet the people counterfeiting against his tenure at the mint carried that syllogism to its final conclusion in their own minds. Why the soft pedal? MaxEnt 07:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the passage to alter the first sentence which is (as you say) a bit POV and also a bit pompous.--Jack Upland 00:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Unitarian?

He's on a List of Unitarians, but no mention is made in the article. Mathiastck 01:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well in a way it is. In the section on Religious views:

Newton rejected the church's doctrine of the trinity, and was probably a follower of arianism.

If I recall the Westfall biography goes in to some detail. Although Newton tended to keep his religious views private, I think there is some good evidence (probably in his notebooks) that he was explicitly anti-trinitarian - a little ironic given that he was a member of Trinity College, Cambridge. There was also something about him receiving help from [[Isaac Barrow](?) to avoid him having to take the oath of allegiance to the Church of England on becoming a fellow.

Then you just have to decide whether being an arian counts as a unitarian for the purposes of the List of Unitarians, Universalists, and Unitarian Universalists (the arianism article suggests that it is wrong to identify them with unitarians, but they seem pretty close.) On the other hand the this page on the Newton Project website describes him as just a unitarian. -- Solipsist 11:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)