https://royalsociety.org/news/2012/newton-einstein/

Isaac Newton is considered to have had a greater impact on both science and humankind than Albert Einstein, according to the results of two Royal Society polls announced today (Wednesday 23 November 2005).

The results of both polls are being announced on Wednesday 23 November at 6.30pm as part of the Einstein vs. Newton debate, a public lecture being held at the Royal Society in London, as part of the Einstein Year celebrations.

A total of 1363 members of the public voted online and 345 Royal Society scientists responded to an email questionnaire.

The results showed Newton to be the winner on all counts, although opinion was much closer on the overall contribution to humankind.

When asked who made the bigger overall contribution to science the public voted 61.8% for Newton and 38.2% for Einstein and the SCIENTISTS voted 86.2% for Newton and 13.8% for Einstein.

******* ENOUGH WITH THIS EXCERPT *****************

Public: Idiots like Dono, Moroney, JanPB and alike imbeciles.
Scientists: NO ONE HAS EVER READ OR POSTED AT THIS SHITHOLE.

On 2022-09-19 06:03:43 +0000, Richard Hertz said:

> Isaac Newton is considered to have had a greater impact on both science
> and humankind than Albert Einstein, according to the results of two Royal
> Society polls announced today (Wednesday 23 November 2005).

Newton worked out the basics. Einstein merely fixed some details that
long after Newton's time were found to need some reconsideration.

Mikko

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> https://royalsociety.org/news/2012/newton-einstein/

Next excercise: go ask in Switzerland,

Jan

On Monday, 19 September 2022 at 11:17:00 UTC+2, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-09-19 06:03:43 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
>
> > Isaac Newton is considered to have had a greater impact on both science
> > and humankind than Albert Einstein, according to the results of two Royal
> > Society polls announced today (Wednesday 23 November 2005).
> Newton worked out the basics. Einstein merely fixed some details that
> long after Newton's time were found to need some reconsideration.

But in the meantine in the real world, forbidden by
your idiot guru "incorrect" and "improper" GPS and
TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks
always did.

Mikko wrote:

> On 2022-09-19 06:03:43 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
>> Isaac Newton is considered to have had a greater impact on both science
>> and humankind than Albert Einstein, according to the results of two Royal
>> Society polls announced today (Wednesday 23 November 2005).
>
> Newton worked out the basics. Einstein merely fixed some details that
> long after Newton's time were found to need some reconsideration.

Utter nonsense.

PointedEars
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)

On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 4:32:22 PM UTC-3, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Mikko wrote:
>
> > On 2022-09-19 06:03:43 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
> >> Isaac Newton is considered to have had a greater impact on both science
> >> and humankind than Albert Einstein, according to the results of two Royal
> >> Society polls announced today (Wednesday 23 November 2005).
> >
> > Newton worked out the basics. Einstein merely fixed some details that
> > long after Newton's time were found to need some reconsideration.
> Utter nonsense.
>
>
> PointedEars
> --
> A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
> The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."
>
> (from: WolframAlpha)

I didn't add a single word to the excerpt from the Royal Academy of Sciences article.

But it seems that you are more entitled to make assertions than a 400+ years old institution from England.

You embody all what is wrong with self-entitled relativists. Delusional, arrogant and void propagandists.

But, of course, as you have made a living from relativity, it explains your comment.

The article left you with a severe butthurt, isn't it?. And the poll was made on the 100th. Anniversary of the "Annus Mirabilis",
only that it doesn't please you, Spock.

On Monday, 19 September 2022 at 21:32:22 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Mikko wrote:
>
> > On 2022-09-19 06:03:43 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
> >> Isaac Newton is considered to have had a greater impact on both science
> >> and humankind than Albert Einstein, according to the results of two Royal
> >> Society polls announced today (Wednesday 23 November 2005).
> >
> > Newton worked out the basics. Einstein merely fixed some details that
> > long after Newton's time were found to need some reconsideration.
> Utter nonsense.

Absolutely; poor idiot Einstein has created a religion, where
brainwashed idiots are asserting that we're FORCED to THE
BEST WAY and it's proper whatever our Giant Guru has said
to be proper.

On 2022-09-19 19:32:18 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said:

> Mikko wrote:
>
>> Newton worked out the basics. Einstein merely fixed some details that
>> long after Newton's time were found to need some reconsideration.
>
> Utter nonsense.

What do you think would have happened if Newton had never written his
"Principia"? And what if Einstein had never written his "Zur
Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper"?

Mikko

Mikko wrote:

> On 2022-09-19 19:32:18 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said:
>> Mikko wrote:
>>> Newton worked out the basics. Einstein merely fixed some details that
>>> long after Newton's time were found to need some reconsideration.
>> Utter nonsense.
>
> What do you think would have happened if Newton had never written his
> "Principia"? And what if Einstein had never written his "Zur
> Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper"?

Irrelevant. Einstein did NOT “merely fix some details”. General relativity
is conceptually very different from Newton’s theory of gravity.

Newton: Gravity is

∙ a centripetal force

∙ due to mass,

∙ proportional to the masses of the interacting bodies,
and inversely proportional to the square of their distance,

∙ acting instantly at a distance.

Einstein/general relativity:

∙ Gravity is one of several observable effects of the curvature of
spacetime.

∙ The curvature of spacetime corresponds to its energy–momentum density;

∙ Changes in spacetime curvature propagate at c (gravitational waves).

PointedEars
--
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)

On 2022-09-20 11:47:09 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said:

> Mikko wrote:
>
>> On 2022-09-19 19:32:18 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said:
>>> Mikko wrote:
>>>> Newton worked out the basics. Einstein merely fixed some details that
>>>> long after Newton's time were found to need some reconsideration.
>>> Utter nonsense.
>>
>> What do you think would have happened if Newton had never written his
>> "Principia"? And what if Einstein had never written his "Zur
>> Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper"?
>
> Irrelevant. Einstein did NOT “merely fix some details”. General relativity
> is conceptually very different from Newton’s theory of gravity.

Many of those conceptual innovations were already introduced before
Einstein's time, in particular Riemann's geometry. Even the Newtonian
gravity was already understood in terms of a field theory so the
action at distance was no longer required.

Mikko

Mikko wrote:

> Many of those conceptual innovations were already introduced before
> Einstein's time, in particular Riemann's geometry. Even the Newtonian
> gravity was already understood in terms of a field theory so the
> action at distance was no longer required.

That gravity should not be understood as a force because it disappears
in a free-falling reference frame was Einstein’s original idea.

PointedEars
--
I heard that entropy isn't what it used to be.

(from: WolframAlpha)

On Tuesday, 20 September 2022 at 15:10:12 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Mikko wrote:
>
> > Many of those conceptual innovations were already introduced before
> > Einstein's time, in particular Riemann's geometry. Even the Newtonian
> > gravity was already understood in terms of a field theory so the
> > action at distance was no longer required.
> That gravity should not be understood as a force because it disappears
> in a free-falling reference frame was Einstein’s original idea.

And that synchronizing clock is evil.

On 9/20/2022 8:10 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Mikko wrote:
>
>> Many of those conceptual innovations were already introduced before
>> Einstein's time, in particular Riemann's geometry. Even the Newtonian
>> gravity was already understood in terms of a field theory so the
>> action at distance was no longer required.
>
> That gravity should not be understood as a force because it disappears
> in a free-falling reference frame was Einstein’s original idea.

That's merely a matter of models.

Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:

> On 2022-09-20 11:47:09 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said:
>
> > Mikko wrote:
> >
> >> On 2022-09-19 19:32:18 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said:
> >>> Mikko wrote:
> >>>> Newton worked out the basics. Einstein merely fixed some details that
> >>>> long after Newton's time were found to need some reconsideration.
> >>> Utter nonsense.
> >>
> >> What do you think would have happened if Newton had never written his
> >> "Principia"? And what if Einstein had never written his "Zur
> >> Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper"?
> >
> > Irrelevant. Einstein did NOT "merely fix some details". General relativity
> > is conceptually very different from Newton's theory of gravity.
>
> Many of those conceptual innovations were already introduced before
> Einstein's time, in particular Riemann's geometry. Even the Newtonian
> gravity was already understood in terms of a field theory so the
> action at distance was no longer required.

Nonsense.
A field theory with an infinity velocity of propagation for the fields
is equivalent to an action at a distance theory.
In such cases the field is no more than a mathematical nicety.

Jan

On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 4:49:42 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Mikko <mikko....@iki.fi> wrote:
>
> > On 2022-09-20 11:47:09 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said:
> >
> > > Mikko wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 2022-09-19 19:32:18 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said:
> > >>> Mikko wrote:
> > >>>> Newton worked out the basics. Einstein merely fixed some details that
> > >>>> long after Newton's time were found to need some reconsideration.
> > >>> Utter nonsense.
> > >>
> > >> What do you think would have happened if Newton had never written his
> > >> "Principia"? And what if Einstein had never written his "Zur
> > >> Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper"?
> > >
> > > Irrelevant. Einstein did NOT "merely fix some details". General relativity
> > > is conceptually very different from Newton's theory of gravity.
> >
> > Many of those conceptual innovations were already introduced before
> > Einstein's time, in particular Riemann's geometry. Even the Newtonian
> > gravity was already understood in terms of a field theory so the
> > action at distance was no longer required.
> Nonsense.
> A field theory with an infinity velocity of propagation for the fields
> is equivalent to an action at a distance theory.
> In such cases the field is no more than a mathematical nicety.
>
> Jan

The speed of gravity — What the experiments say
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0375960198006501

Laboratory, solar system, and astrophysical experiments for the “speed of gravity” yield a lower limit of 2 × 10E+10 c.

Not infinite, but fast enough to keep planets orbiting stars.

The spacetime crap and the "cone of light" embedded into it made GR a clumsy, muddy theory where nothing can be faster than c.

Einstein-Minkowski fault.

On 9/20/22 8:02 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> The speed of gravity — What the experiments say
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0375960198006501

Referencing other cranks is useless, even when they happen to get
published in (modestly) reputable journals. None of the results Van
Flandern quotes refute GR in any way; it's surprising that Phys. Lett. A
actually published it. The final sentence of his abstract telegraphs his
shallow understanding, as neither Lorentzian relativity nor special
relativity encompasses gravity.

In the small-field, velocity << c limit, GR approximates Newtonian
gravity extremely well, far better than any experimental resolutions,
including its infinite "propagation" speed. This happens because the
Green's function for that approximation to GR essentially performs a
2nd-order extrapolation of an object's trajectory, just like the Green's
function (aka Lienard-Wiechert potentials) for classical electrodynamics
performs a first-order extrapolation. The conditions of that
approximation prevent physical situations that would refute it.

(There is no Green's function for GR itself, as it is
nonlinear, and Green's functions are inherently linear.)

Tom Roberts

On Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 06:24:26 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 9/20/22 8:02 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > The speed of gravity — What the experiments say
> > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0375960198006501
> Referencing other cranks is useless, even when they happen to get
> published in (modestly) reputable journals. None of the results Van
> Flandern quotes refute GR in any way; it's surprising that Phys. Lett. A
> actually published it. The final sentence of his abstract telegraphs his
> shallow understanding, as neither Lorentzian relativity nor special
> relativity encompasses gravity.
>
> In the small-field, velocity << c limit, GR approximates Newtonian
> gravity extremely well, far better than any experimental resolutions,
> including its infinite "propagation" speed. This happens because the
> Green's function for that approximation to GR essentially performs a
> 2nd-order extrapolation of an object's trajectory, just like the Green's
> function (aka Lienard-Wiechert potentials) for classical electrodynamics
> performs a first-order extrapolation. The conditions of that
> approximation prevent physical situations that would refute it.

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like
all serious clocks always did.

On 2022-09-20 19:49:40 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-09-20 11:47:09 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said:
>>
>>> Mikko wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-09-19 19:32:18 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said:
>>>>> Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> Newton worked out the basics. Einstein merely fixed some details that
>>>>>> long after Newton's time were found to need some reconsideration.
>>>>> Utter nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think would have happened if Newton had never written his
>>>> "Principia"? And what if Einstein had never written his "Zur
>>>> Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper"?
>>>
>>> Irrelevant. Einstein did NOT "merely fix some details". General relativity
>>> is conceptually very different from Newton's theory of gravity.
>>
>> Many of those conceptual innovations were already introduced before
>> Einstein's time, in particular Riemann's geometry. Even the Newtonian
>> gravity was already understood in terms of a field theory so the
>> action at distance was no longer required.
>
> Nonsense.
> A field theory with an infinity velocity of propagation for the fields
> is equivalent to an action at a distance theory.
> In such cases the field is no more than a mathematical nicety.

True, but those fields were introduced before Einstein's time, and so
were fields with slower propagation. Anyway, Riemann's geometry was
more important to Einstein.

Mikko

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 4:49:42 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Mikko <mikko....@iki.fi> wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-09-20 11:47:09 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said:
> > >
> > > > Mikko wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On 2022-09-19 19:32:18 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said:
> > > >>> Mikko wrote:
> > > >>>> Newton worked out the basics. Einstein merely fixed some details that
> > > >>>> long after Newton's time were found to need some reconsideration.
> > > >>> Utter nonsense.
> > > >>
> > > >> What do you think would have happened if Newton had never written his
> > > >> "Principia"? And what if Einstein had never written his "Zur
> > > >> Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper"?
> > > >
> > > > Irrelevant. Einstein did NOT "merely fix some details". General
> > > > relativity is conceptually very different from Newton's theory of
> > > > gravity.
> > >
> > > Many of those conceptual innovations were already introduced before
> > > Einstein's time, in particular Riemann's geometry. Even the Newtonian
> > > gravity was already understood in terms of a field theory so the
> > > action at distance was no longer required.
> > Nonsense.
> > A field theory with an infinity velocity of propagation for the fields
> > is equivalent to an action at a distance theory.
> > In such cases the field is no more than a mathematical nicety.
> >
> > Jan
>
> The speed of gravity — What the experiments say
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0375960198006501
>
> Laboratory, solar system, and astrophysical experiments for the "speed of
> gravity" yield a lower limit of 2 ? 10E+10 c.
>
> Not infinite, but fast enough to keep planets orbiting stars.

You are a typical crackpot. In real science incorrect results die out,
are forgotten, and become history.
Crackpots cling to outdated views as if these are still current.
(like Flat Earthers)
So get over it, if you want to be taken seriously.

As it went, Van Flandern published in 1998, almost 25 years ago,
and his work was soon refuted. (by Steve Carlip, a.o.)
You can find it discussed even on usenet, in sci.phys.research

Of course, in the meantime, it has also been refuted experimentally,
by coincident detection of gravitational waves and optical signals,

Jan

On Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 11:07:41 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 4:49:42 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Mikko <mikko....@iki.fi> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 2022-09-20 11:47:09 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said:
> > > >
> > > > > Mikko wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On 2022-09-19 19:32:18 +0000, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said:
> > > > >>> Mikko wrote:
> > > > >>>> Newton worked out the basics. Einstein merely fixed some details that
> > > > >>>> long after Newton's time were found to need some reconsideration.
> > > > >>> Utter nonsense.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What do you think would have happened if Newton had never written his
> > > > >> "Principia"? And what if Einstein had never written his "Zur
> > > > >> Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper"?
> > > > >
> > > > > Irrelevant. Einstein did NOT "merely fix some details". General
> > > > > relativity is conceptually very different from Newton's theory of
> > > > > gravity.
> > > >
> > > > Many of those conceptual innovations were already introduced before
> > > > Einstein's time, in particular Riemann's geometry. Even the Newtonian
> > > > gravity was already understood in terms of a field theory so the
> > > > action at distance was no longer required.
> > > Nonsense.
> > > A field theory with an infinity velocity of propagation for the fields
> > > is equivalent to an action at a distance theory.
> > > In such cases the field is no more than a mathematical nicety.
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
> > The speed of gravity — What the experiments say
> > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0375960198006501
> >
> > Laboratory, solar system, and astrophysical experiments for the "speed of
> > gravity" yield a lower limit of 2 ? 10E+10 c.
> >
> > Not infinite, but fast enough to keep planets orbiting stars.
> You are a typical crackpot. In real science incorrect results die out,
> are forgotten, and become history.
> Crackpots cling to outdated views as if these are still current.

And that forbidden by their insane cult TAI
and GPS don't measure t'=t, just like all serious
clocks always did.

> (like Flat Earthers)

Indeed.

On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 6:07:41 AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:

<snip>

> Of course, in the meantime, it has also been refuted experimentally,
> by coincident detection of gravitational waves and optical signals,
>
> Jan

I don't have a degree in Computer Sciences, so I can't make any assertions about the accuracy of algorithms
used by LIGO's computer network to find a match between a dumping glitch (like a 200 msec waveform) and
the database with more than 250,000 THEORETICAL SOLUTIONS of GR equations. Is it delusional or real science?

More yet: your "experimental based refutation" is the product of more than 2 weeks (24x7) of computing work with
software based on HEAVY FILTERING AND CORRELATION ALGORITHMS for such short blimp, which "allegedly"
imply spatial distortions in the order of 10E-17 meters.

Allow me to call such "experimental proof" a GIANT PILE OF CRAP!

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 6:07:41 AM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Of course, in the meantime, it has also been refuted experimentally,
> > by coincident detection of gravitational waves and optical signals,
> >
> > Jan
>
> I don't have a degree in Computer Sciences, so I can't make any assertions
> about the accuracy of algorithms used by LIGO's computer network to find a
> match between a dumping glitch (like a 200 msec waveform) and the database
> with more than 250,000 THEORETICAL SOLUTIONS of GR equations. Is it
> delusional or real science?
>
> More yet: your "experimental based refutation" is the product of more than
> 2 weeks (24x7) of computing work with software based on HEAVY FILTERING
> AND CORRELATION ALGORITHMS for such short blimp, which "allegedly" imply
> spatial distortions in the order of 10E-17 meters.
>
> Allow me to call such "experimental proof" a GIANT PILE OF CRAP!

You are completely behind the times, as usual.
Multi-messenger astronomy is about neutron star mergers.
These can be followed for about 100 seconds with LIGO and VIRGO.
The automated LIGO GW alert went out 6 minutes after the event.
(and it coincided with the gamma flash alert seen by spacecraft)

The GW event has been confirmed by EM observations
all over the spectrum in the weeks that followed.

That 'giant pile of crap' is yours, and only yours.
This is real science, and you are the one who is delusional,
(but do try to grow out of it)

Jan

--
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW170817> was the first one,
there will no doubt be more.

On Saturday, 24 September 2022 at 11:09:26 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> You are completely behind the times, as usual.
> Multi-messenger astronomy is about neutron star mergers.
> These can be followed for about 100 seconds with LIGO and VIRGO.
> The automated LIGO GW alert went out 6 minutes after the event.
> (and it coincided with the gamma flash alert seen by spacecraft)
>
> The GW event has been confirmed by EM observations
> all over the spectrum in the weeks that followed.
>
> That 'giant pile of crap' is yours, and only yours.
> This is real science, and you are the one who is delusional,
> (but do try to grow out of it)

In the meantime in the real world, of course, forbidden
by youir bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.