Prev: Model != World?
Next: If Gauss Put His FFT On His Web Page It Wouldn't Have Had To Be Rediscovered In WWII
From: M Purcell on 6 Jan 2010 20:19
On Jan 6, 4:50 pm, Les Cargill <lcargil...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> M Purcell wrote:
> > On Jan 6, 7:22 am, "Larry Hammick" <larryhamm...(a)telus.net> wrote:
> >> "Immortalist" <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:4bf1106b-6020-4ca1-afe2-431917d06014(a)s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com....
> >> [
> >> Development of the quarrel
> >> ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz_and_Newton_calculus_controversy
> >> ]
>
> >> Look at the length of this thread. It illustrates that the history of
> >> analysis is a long and painful and messy story.
>
> > This topic reminds me of my college days and I suspect we were
> > attempting to assign blame rather than credit. But now, what seems
> > relevant about this story is that Newton didn't seem eager to make his
> > work available to other people and resorted to political maneuvering.
>
> But Newton was an alchemist. They were like that, according
> to what I've been told.

Seems like the more things change the more they stay the same. I
suspect it's a human thing and still seems applicable today with the
contraversy over global warming, industrial and national secrets,
government grants, ect.
From: spudnik on 6 Jan 2010 22:49
why do you think that Sir Isaac was rewarded
with the minding of the mint?... the "controversy" was an operation
to defame Leibniz, in order to scuttle his appt. by Queen Anne.

> > > relevant about this story is that Newton didn't seem eager to make his
> > > work available to other people and resorted to political maneuvering.
>
> > But Newton was an alchemist. They were like that, according

--l'OEuvre!
http://wlym.com
From: spudnik on 6 Jan 2010 23:05
I wonder if Anrcoles will plonk me, or if
he really put me into his killfile.

thus:
the only evidence of a "photon" is,
when the wave goes, Splat!

for instance,
the "rods & cones" of the retina a)
do not contain three pigments (per Young's "[apparent] trichromacy
of vision" -- full phrase due to Land), and b)
are both conformed of "log-spiral antennae." so,
how do you get a "photon" to be absorbed by that?

if some body shoots a fulleren at your eyeball, duck!

> Oh yeah, that's right, I forgot your answer was, "Because it's a
> wave".
>
> In AD, the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while
> the displacement wave it creates in the aether enters and exits
> multiple slits.

also see:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon.pdf
> <http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~acarpi/NSC/4-pertab.htm>.

--l'OEuvre!
http://wlym.com
From: M Purcell on 7 Jan 2010 01:15
On Jan 6, 7:49 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > > relevant about this story is that Newton didn't seem eager to make his
> > > > work available to other people and resorted to political maneuvering.
>
> > > But Newton was an alchemist. They were like that, according
>
> why do you think that Sir Isaac was rewarded
> with the minding of the mint?... the "controversy" was an operation
> to defame Leibniz, in order to scuttle his appt. by Queen Anne.

Newton became warden of the Royal Mint in 1696, Leibniz was accused of
pliagerism in 1711, and was appointed Imperial Court Councillor to the
Habsburgs the following year. It also seems Newton had mercury
poisoning and predicted the end of the world in 2060, "This I mention
not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to
the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the
time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into
discredit as often as their predictions fail."
From: karl on 7 Jan 2010 04:30
chazwin schrieb:
> On Jan 5, 3:36 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote:
>> It matters not. The Calculus was not philosophically rationalized until
>> quite recently. Regardless, it was perfectly useful until then, and
>> remains useful today.
>>
>> For the obsessive of the 'Inductive Reasoning' thread - eat your hearts
>> out.
>>
>> Back to the subnect, it was found that Leibniz's approach was more
>> useful, fewer hacks, more direct. Leibniz wins.
>
> Leibniz was a better publicist, whilst Newton was a loner and recluse.
> That is why we tend to use his notation.
> There is evidence that Leibniz stole the idea on a trip to England,
> and Newton accused him of that.


I ask again: Where is your evidence?
Provide it or concede that you are a nonsense talker!
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Prev: Model != World?
Next: If Gauss Put His FFT On His Web Page It Wouldn't Have Had To Be Rediscovered In WWII