I came across this show about the life of the famous Sir Isaac Newton.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=930571660745143381
I was very surprised about what this revealed about him. Apparently he had two lives. One life was the man who came up with all that math and all sorts of physics, that is a rational person. The other life was about fanaticism and mysticism. Can a person be both a genius and a total whackjob at the same time? It seems he was.
Well, being an alchemist back in 1700 was not thought of as being crazy. And consider the writings of another giant of science, Kepler, who in ~ 1600 wrote about the mystery of the spheres. Was he crazy? And by the way, he was employed as an astrologer - hence his interest in the motion of the planets. Then we have the whole "life-force" issue that was not really resolved by scientists until the 19th century; so it's very difficult to apply modern standards of "rational thought" to latter day scientists!
It seems he was a bit extreme even by the standards of that time. My statement was more of an observation than a criticism. Even today not all scientific sorts are always dry and logical all of the time. Even today there are a lot who are into things like alchemy or the occult, even very respectable people who hide it. Newton did know where to draw the line. His occult side did not corrupt the accuracy of his scientific work. There are those whose individual religious/mystical beliefs taint the science. They force the science to fit the dogma of whatever belief. He did not do that, so his reputation was secure.
I have noticed with science though. If you do start out with some particular religious/mystical belief, there is the danger that the science could shatter that belief. Some people avoid science for fear of it ruining their faith. I have met people who purposely avoid science in any depth for that very reason. Newton apparently took the risk. From his point of view he was lucky because no pet belief was threatened by what he discovered. Had he been alive when relativity was discovered, I wonder? I think the idea of absolute space and time was part of his beliefs concerning the divine.
I have noticed with science though. If you do start out with some particular religious/mystical belief, there is the danger that the science could shatter that belief. Some people avoid science for fear of it ruining their faith. I have met people who purposely avoid science in any depth for that very reason. Newton apparently took the risk. From his point of view he was lucky because no pet belief was threatened by what he discovered. Had he been alive when relativity was discovered, I wonder? I think the idea of absolute space and time was part of his beliefs concerning the divine.
Interesting Empress.
The 'hermetic lores' was never Christian. the church looked at it as a abomination.
But he was impressive, even if it seems like he was a very vindictive and quarrelsome person.
The 'hermetic lores' was never Christian. the church looked at it as a abomination.
But he was impressive, even if it seems like he was a very vindictive and quarrelsome person.
NEWTON WAS A GENIUS AND A CRANK.
ALL PHYSICISTS OF STRINGS ARE CRANKS?
ALL PHYSICISTS OF STRINGS ARE CRANKS?
QUOTE
Can a person be both a genius and a total whackjob at the same time? It seems he was.
There's a lot of it about!
If we want to know the answers to certain questions, we must not be afraid to ask them.
g.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Apr 14 2008, 02:24 AM)
Well, being an alchemist back in 1700 was not thought of as being crazy.
True, but alchemists were known for using mercury in their experiments. Breathe enough of that and you'll be crazy.
True, but alchemists were known for using mercury in their experiments. Breathe enough of that and you'll be crazy.
QUOTE (Empress Palpatine+Apr 13 2008, 05:55 AM)
Can a person be both a genius and a total whackjob at the same time?
You've never visited Cambridge, have you
You've never visited Cambridge, have you
y'all have no idea at all.. he was so far away from your experiences that y'all just have NO IDEA..... without him.. modern science would still be banging rocks together.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Apr 15 2008, 07:26 AM)
y'all have no idea at all.. he was so far away from your experiences that y'all just have NO IDEA..... without him.. modern science would still be banging rocks together.
Without you we might be banging a decent conversation together!
g.
Without you we might be banging a decent conversation together!
g.
QUOTE
Can a person be both a genius and a total whackjob at the same time? It seems he was.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Can a person be both a genius and a total whackjob at the same time? It seems he was. |
But he was impressive, even if it seems like he was a very vindictive and quarrelsome person.
Newton was a huge @sshole! This is pretty well known. I was reading recently that his famous statement "If I were to see farther, it was because I was standing on the shoulders of giants" was not this nice quote like it sounds when its out of context. It was actually written in a letter to Robert Hooke. Robert Hooke was apparently on par with Newton and Kepler in his scientific ability (which was systematically removed from history by Newton because Hooke died before him). Anyways, Newton and Hooke had a feud going on and Hooke wrote a letter to Newton to try and settle things. It should also be noted that Hooke had a "crooked" back, as my source called it and was a small man. In this letter Newton praised the work of people like Kepler, Copernicus and Tycho Brahe (but not Hooke) and then made his statement about standing on the shoulders of Giants. Since we know that Newton was generally a jerk, it seems to make much more sense that this apparently nice and humble statement was still meant as an insult.
Its also hilarious!
Another famous brilliant jerk is Edison, although people seem to be a bit more familiar with his antics.
QUOTE (Steveo+Apr 16 2008, 05:25 PM)
Newton was a huge @sshole!
That could explain the choice of ID by a certain physorg member. Except the original had the excuse of genius (and possible mercury poisoning), the new inferior copy merely fits your description.
That could explain the choice of ID by a certain physorg member. Except the original had the excuse of genius (and possible mercury poisoning), the new inferior copy merely fits your description.
NOM:
Yes, I read somewhere that Newton had some kind of nervous breakdown in 1693, something Newton himself referred to as his "Black Year." Some claim this was simply due to overwork since Newton used to work sometimes until 5 in the morning!
However, I believe samples of Newton's hair, analysed in the 1970s, showed elevated levels of lead and mercury probably due to his alchemical research. In fact it is known that Newton spent a long time working on the purification of antimony using mercury amalgams.
Yes, I read somewhere that Newton had some kind of nervous breakdown in 1693, something Newton himself referred to as his "Black Year." Some claim this was simply due to overwork since Newton used to work sometimes until 5 in the morning!
However, I believe samples of Newton's hair, analysed in the 1970s, showed elevated levels of lead and mercury probably due to his alchemical research. In fact it is known that Newton spent a long time working on the purification of antimony using mercury amalgams.
"Can a person be both a genius and a total whackjob at the same time?"
The more appropriate question is: can one be a genius without being eccentric (a whack job)?
"Fools Rush In, Where Angels Fear To Tread"
It is interesting, how we (non geniuses, by Newton's standard) feel so empowered to comment on opaque aspects of transcendence, even with no framework of perspective in place, whatsoever, from which to do so.
The laws of the universe are but child's play, compared to the extrapolatory nature possessing the progenitors of such.
Can a galaxy exist without a black hole?
Same question.
The more appropriate question is: can one be a genius without being eccentric (a whack job)?
"Fools Rush In, Where Angels Fear To Tread"
It is interesting, how we (non geniuses, by Newton's standard) feel so empowered to comment on opaque aspects of transcendence, even with no framework of perspective in place, whatsoever, from which to do so.
The laws of the universe are but child's play, compared to the extrapolatory nature possessing the progenitors of such.
Can a galaxy exist without a black hole?
Same question.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.