Changes

Talk:Isaac Newton (view source)

Revision as of 20:21, March 11, 2007

1,099 bytes added , 20:21, March 11, 2007

→‎Newton and Falsification: Newton not fully falsified

Line 17: Line 17:

For those reasons, I believe this information belongs in the article—but since it has been repeatedly deleted I’ve chosen to put it on the talk page for now. Can anyone cite a reason to believe this paragraph is false, or explain why it does not belong here? Or can anyone cite to more reputable sources to bolster this paragraph? Or can anyone offer suggested changes that would make it palatable to all parties to this debate?

+

: I do think that it is pretty absurd to say that some 1816 observation of Mercury falsified Newton. It is true that there was no good explanation for Mercury’s anomalous perihelion, but there were possible explanations that did not involve changing Newton's law of gravity.

+

: I also don't think that a 20th century philosopher is a reliable source on this point. If an 1816 observation really falsified Newton, then there should have been physicists in 1817 saying that the observation proves that they should all stop relying on Newton's laws. There weren't then, and there aren't now. Newton's laws are still useful and have not been "fully falsified".

+

: Yes, General Relativity has superceded Newtonian gravitation, but the 1919 observations did not provide the necessary evidence. The 1919 observation was sold as proof to the public at the time, but was actually inconclusive.

+

: On another topic, why is Newton called "Sir"? I wouldn't think that a conservative American encyclopedia would respect some silly British nobility title. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

+

==Reference==

RSchlafly

Administrators

1,792

edits