Talk:Isaac Newton/Archive 8

Image Correction

The main image is incorrectly cited as being by Sir Godfrey Kneller. It is actually a copy done by Barrington Bramley (1992).

http://www.newton.ac.uk/about/art-artefacts/newton-portrait — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.122.217 (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I see that since I requested the edit change, Paine has altered the article: It used to read " ... no arithmetic or mathematics." and it has since been changed to "... no arithmetic or mathematics worth mentioning." The article's earlier wording was a partial quote from pg 56 of Westfall 1980, and the later version completes the quote of Westfall's line in that edition.

My proposed edit however cites what Westfall later wrote in the preface to the paperback edition first published in 1983, and repeated in all subsequent publications until at least 1988. In that preface Westfall, from research by Whiteside, retracts the position which he stated in the hardcover editions. He notes that more recent scholarship makes it probable that Newton was taught significant mathematics in the school at Grantham. He states that [Whiteside's finding] "... strongly implies that my words on Newton's grammar school education need basic revision. It is highly probable that he was far from a novice in mathematics when he arrive at Cambridge ..."

The article needs revision. I would like to change my original proposal to read as follows: "Newton was educated at the King's School, Grantham, which taught Latin and Greek. It is also highly probable, however, that he was taught both practical arithmetic for farmers as well as instructions for calculating a table of sines, methods of inscribing equilateral figures in circles, and methods of determining the values of pi."

Don Martin 19 (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2016

Newton did not die peacefully in his sleep. He died painfully of a gallstone. source : James Gleick (Isaac Newton) p196. 77.75.102.34 (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: You must be in error: I searched Gleick's ISBN from the article, 0-375-42233-1, found it in two places, searched both book copies for "gallstone" with no results, found page 196 at one source, found nothing on that page about Newton's death, and decided that this should be a "not done".  Paine  ^u/c 03:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Two more things:

1. Digging deeper, Newton did suffer from a gallstone near the time of his death, as well as several other health problems. One would need an official death certificate for any definitive answer as to the cause of his death.
2. "Peacefully" is your word and not found in this article, which says only that "Newton died in his sleep..." That's okay, because it seems to be a common assumption that when one dies in his or her sleep, then they must have gone "peacefully". I wonder how true that really is? How peaceful is a massive heart attack that hits while one is asleep? or anything that is acutely painful? There is often no one around to confirm such a "peaceful" demise. And often when there is someone who was there, they tell other family members of their loved one's "peaceful" passing. Are they just being sensitive and kind? So I wonder.  Paine  ^u/c 03:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Alleged liberation

In the section entitled "Classification of cubics", we are told that Descartes freed maths from the Greek restriction to conics, which are quadratics. Actually, Diocles and Nicomedes considered cubics and quartics long before the time of Descartes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.128.149 (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

And there may have been others who got it in before ol' René; however, until somebody includes a reliable source that supports such a claim, the paragraph on conics shouldn't be altered.  Paine  ^u/c 19:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

See the Wikipedia articles on Diocles and Nicomedes, already mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.128.149 (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The Babylonians might have considered cubic equations, without drawing a graph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.128.149 (talk) 08:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources are not needed for statements of the obvious, anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.128.149 (talk) 08:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The phrase "paragraph on conics" seems to be a mistake for "paragraph on cubics". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.128.149 (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Not to sound pedantic, but...

...the image of his "tomb" is, in my mind, incorrectly labeled - that is actually Newton's monument within the abbey. His grave-site & tomb (which is underground) is located just in front (i.e with you facing the choir screen). This monument cannot be considered part of the tomb per se as it is not located immediately above is not part of its structure, unlike, say, the graves of Henry VII and his wife. The monument was of course completed 5 or so years after Newton's death. This layout is common throughout the abbey when it concerns later burials (post-civil war) - burial traditions changed in the late 17th-century, for instance commoners now had gravestones by default, similar to the ones we have today (albeit with different period styles)--Chairman Peng Xi (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Voltaire's assertion that he died a virgin

The article says 'The French writer and philosopher Voltaire, who was in London at the time of Newton's funeral, said that he "was never sensible to any passion, was not subject to the common frailties of mankind, nor had any commerce with women—a circumstance which was assured me by the physician and surgeon who attended him in his last moments".' It cites Voltaire's Letters on England. Now this is much better sourced than the 10 or so other references I found on the web to Newton's virginity; however, the other references all claim that Voltaire said, that Newton's doctor said, that Newton "confessed" to dying a virgin; or sometimes this is embellished as Newton asserting himself to be "proudest of dying a virgin". I can't find any good primary sources for these other references. But Wikipedia's article gave me the impression that something like the following occurred: "Doctor: 'Phew, he's dead. Now I can do what I've been waiting to do all these years ... peek-a-boo! ... aha! there's something missing'". Can we clear this up, or do the primary sources really leave such an ambiguity? A5 (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2016

Based on the Modern Day Calendar (Gregorian Calendar), Issac Newton was born on 4th of January 1643 and died on 31st March 1727... Although according to the Julian Calendar at use at that time. The date of birth according to wiki has been set on 25th December 1642 as follows "Sir Isaac Newton FRS (/ˈnjuːtən/;[6] 25 December 1642 – 20 March 1726/27[1]) was an English physicist and mathematician... ". Although wiki refers to the Julian Calendar in the later part of the context, I think it is more appropriate to set his date of birth and death as 4th Jan 1643 and 31st March 1727, respectively as that is the calendar we use right now and it is more precise to where the earth was, in it's orbit around the sun, when Newton was born. RIturajP (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - Mlpearc (open channel) 05:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Heraldry notion

Please notice the coat of arms mentioned isn't "personal" but inherited from Newton baronets#Relationship to Isaac Newton, I suggest replacing the statement under the picture to "Newton baronets coat of arms, (was) adopted by Isaac Newton".31.154.81.28 (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Chairman Peng Xi if you may consider the above...thank you.31.154.81.28 (talk) 08:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Theramin maybe, you may help...31.154.81.28 (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Omnipaedista maybe you may help :-)?213.8.204.76 (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Josve05amaybe you may help :-)? (see the above if you may)213.8.204.2 (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I have adjusted the caption and added a couple of refs. GrindtXX (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

GrindtXX brilliant, thank you.213.8.204.2 (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isaac Newton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131007005450/http://isaac-newton.org/heretic.pdf to http://www.isaac-newton.org/heretic.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070619/28049_Papers_Show_Isaac_Newton%27s_Religious_Side%2C_Predict_Date_of_Apocalypse.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Spam for historian

There is some spam for an historian here.

The historian is Tom Whiteside.

I don't know who put it in to the article.

Some effort is needed to find the culprit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 6trgklmn (talk • contribs) 08:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

What makes you think it's spam? Whiteside's been dead for almost a decade, so it's not him. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The remark was posted by Garfield Garfield on 25/12/2014. It could be seen as peacock verbiage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.203.120 (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Now that we have established that, would you like to explain what you want to change and why or, perhaps, do it yourself? - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the mention of Whiteside. The sentence seemed to be simply saying that Whiteside wrote a paper about Newton. Given that Newton was one of the major figures of scientific history, I would imagine that hundreds or thousands of notable people have written books and papers about him; there seems no obvious reason to mention this one, nor does it seem to have any particular relevance to the section of the article it appeared in. TSP (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Isaac Newton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071213020643/http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton/index.jsp to http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton/index.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201035839/http://www.brogdale.org/ to http://www.brogdale.org/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.brogdale.org.uk/image1.php?varietyid=1089
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://etoile.berkeley.edu/~jrg/TelescopeHistory/Early_Period.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060207225233/http://tqnyc.org/NYC051308/index.htm to http://www.tqnyc.org/NYC051308/index.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://hss.fullerton.edu/philosophy/GeneralScholium.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007101707/http://www.math.rutgers.edu/courses/436/Honors02/newton.html to http://www.math.rutgers.edu/courses/436/Honors02/newton.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061213222519/http://www.ltrc.mcmaster.ca/newton/ to http://www.ltrc.mcmaster.ca/newton/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Update of section on 2060 date

This is often shared as a "prediction" by Newton. I thought the section needed to make it clearer that it was not a prophecy at all. Rephrased it to make this clearer, included more of the quote, added more cites. No substantive changes, just made it clearer including avoiding possible misunderstandings of the text. I've said "has been reported as a prediction". Before the text described it as a prediction, which it never was. Also made it clear that this is an unpublished manuscript - so not a manuscript for one of his publications of the time. Just calling it a manuscript doesn't make it clear that it was unpublished as you get manuscripts of published works too. Robert Walker (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Also added that he later revised the date to 2016 as described here: [1] using the cites from that section. Robert Walker (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Legacy subsection

Why is there not a legacy section for isaac newtons page?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.91.154.109 (talk) 07:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Birth Date

Isaac Newton was born in 1643, not 1642. Please change the mistake in the introduction.07:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)~Ali Nariman (talk)

See Old Style and New Style dates and Reference #1 in the article. Mikenorton (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2018

In section Occult please change "The passage is clear, when you read the date in context" to "The passage is clear, when the date is read in context" or similar, per WP:YOU. 192.41.131.252 (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Vsmith (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Newton's Legacy

Science has influenced this world in many ways but especially in technology; it's help speed things up to make life a bit more easier. Newton transformed science in the 2oth century with the special theory of relativity, the general theory of relativity, and quantum theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliciaachavezz (talk • contribs) on 07:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

You've misunderstood the article. It's about what came after Newton. (The title alone should tell you that.) He certainly didn't have anything to do with the theories you've listed. P.S. Next time, please add your signature (with four tildes). Clarityfiend (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Change death date in lead to only NS

His birth year is in NS date format so why shouldn't his death date be? An {{efn}} can just be added or something.  Nixinova  T  C  03:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

What should be a simple matter has led to endless debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.30.37 (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Both the birth date and death date need to be given in both old and new styles. Old style (Julian) dates were then in use in England and consequently those old style dates are often quoted in the literature. New style (Gregorian) dates are sometimes quoted today for Newton. We need both. I would be happy for the old style date of death to be given as 20 March 1726/1727. TowardsTheLight (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

How about a uniform birthday and death?

In the question of displaying I.N.'s birthday by the old or new system, different decisions have been made in the main text and infobox: one displays the old dates only, while the other presents the new date as tha main one and the old date in the parenthesis. Further confusion is spread in Religious views of Isaac Newton where only the new dates are given. For most people, the situation with two calendars is complicated enough, so could we at least keep it coherent, please, one way or another? --82.131.40.240 (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

issac Newton

how issac Newton was covered in coffin

Benson paul (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

What? Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2018

Newton was born on 25th December,1642 and not on January 4th as this wiki page says. My source is Britannica. Bijufox (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: This page says Newton was born on 25 December 1642 Old Style or 4 January 1643 New Style. I don't think that contradicts your source. Gulumeemee (talk) 03:29, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2018

Newton and Alchemy Following the publication of Principia, Newton was ready for a new direction in life. He no longer found contentment in his position at Cambridge and was becoming more involved in other issues. He helped lead the resistance to King James II's attempts to reinstitute Catholic teaching at Cambridge, and in 1689 he was elected to represent Cambridge in Parliament.

While in London, Newton acquainted himself with a broader group of intellectuals and became acquainted with political philosopher John Locke. Though many of the scientists on the continent continued to teach the mechanical world according to Aristotle, a young generation of British scientists became captivated with Newton's new view of the physical world and recognized him as their leader. One of these admirers was Nicolas Fatio de Duillier, a Swiss mathematician whom Newton befriended while in London.

However, within a few years, Newton fell into another nervous breakdown in 1693. The cause is open to speculation: his disappointment over not being appointed to a higher position by England's new monarchs, William III and Mary II, or the subsequent loss of his friendship with Duillier; exhaustion from being overworked; or perhaps chronic mercury poisoning after decades of alchemical research. It's difficult to know the exact cause, but evidence suggests that letters written by Newton to several of his London acquaintances and friends, including Duillier, seemed deranged and paranoiac, and accused them of betrayal and conspiracy.

Oddly enough, Newton recovered quickly, wrote letters of apology to friends, and was back to work within a few months. He emerged with all his intellectual facilities intact, but seemed to have lost interest in scientific problems and now favored pursuing prophecy and scripture and the study of alchemy. While some might see this as work beneath the man who had revolutionized science, it might be more properly attributed to Newton responding to the issues of the time in turbulent 17th century Britain. Many intellectuals were grappling with the meaning of many different subjects, not least of which were religion, politics and the very purpose of life. Modern science was still so new that no one knew for sure how it measured up against older philosophies. BethatpersonwhoscutE (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

That's good info about his later life that I wouldn't mind incorporating, but most importantly, what's the source? UpdateNerd (talk) 04:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Text appears to be copypasted from here: looks reasonably sound, but I'd rather see something a bit more scholarly that actually cites its sources. GrindtXX (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a transcript of the BBC documentary Newton The Dark Heretic. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good for me I think — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.137.53 (talk) 07:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

In the article Isaac Newton is described as an English mathematician, physicist, astronomer, theologian, and author but the ordering doesn’t really represent the reality of his importance to the various fields. Newton’s contributions to mathematics were absolutely profound and nothing short of miraculous, his work setting up the very heart of infinitesimal calculus, the generalisation of the binomial theorem for negative indices and his work on power series are some of the greatest feats of human thought, but almost everyone would agree HE WAS A MUCH, MUCH MORE PROFOUND PHYSICIST, The GREATEST physicist of all time, with maybe the exception of Einstein. In fact, his primary drive for the discovery of calculus was PHYSICS. He’s practically worked and laid the foundation for EVERY SINGLE FIELD OF PHYSICS. OPTICS, MECHANICS, FLUID DYNAMICS, THERMODYNAMICS, THERE’S NOTHING NEWTON DIDN’T WORK ON! This is why I ask that the description be rephrased as an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, theologian, and author in the correct order of importance of his contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surya137 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. Cmjrees (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Einstein's theory of relativity did not "supersede" Newton's laws of motion and universal gravitation. Einstein's theory added to the idea of gravity by explaining a mechanism behind why objects of mass gravitate toward each other. The article makes it seem like Einstein's theory replaced Newton's, which isn't the least bit true.

Please replace the word "supersede" from the first sentence of the second paragraph with a word that more accurately describes the relationship between Einstein's work and Newton's.

Suggested replacements:

In Principia, Newton formulated the laws of motion and universal gravitation that formed the dominant scientific viewpoint until it was re-evaluated by the theory of relativity. In Principia, Newton formulated the laws of motion and universal gravitation that formed the dominant scientific viewpoint until it was appended by the theory of relativity. In Principia, Newton formulated the laws of motion and universal gravitation that formed the dominant scientific viewpoint until it was overhauled by the theory of relativity. In Principia, Newton formulated the laws of motion and universal gravitation that formed the dominant scientific viewpoint until it was re-imagined by the theory of relativity.

Any word that implies a working relationship between the two will be fine, so that readers do not assume that Newton's laws are no longer applicable, which they are (albeit not as Newton thought they would be). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhodes0606 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Pfizenmaier

The quoted source states that the academic consensus is that Newton was an Arian. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2019

next to "considered to be one of the most influential scientists of all time" put "(next to Bill Nye of course)" 24.23.52.154 (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. That's pretty funny. El_C 03:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

PRS? And what order of chivalry was he knight of?

I'm sceptical of the designation 'PRS'. My impression is that the standard designation is FRS, with Presidents merely being a detail that's ignored.

When someone is knighted, they are knighted into an order of civalry - be it the Garter, Bath or other. Given that he's not a member of the Garter - he's not in the list, and the Bath post dates his knighting, was he a member of an order, or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ender's Shadow Snr (talk • contribs) 21:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

You're wrong about knights. Only some knights belong to an order of chivalry. Others, bog-standard knights, don't, and are known as Knights Bachelor. I assume this is what Newton was.

I'm less knowledgeable about PRS, but if you look at List of presidents of the Royal Society, and then click through to the individual biographies, they do almost all use this honorific, often in addition to FRS – e.g. Christopher Wren, Hans Sloane, Humphry Davy. Or, for an external example of the usage, see here. So it does seem to be the convention. GrindtXX (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)