>incorrectness. The observations that Newton had to work with weren't
>accurate enough to take into account all the intricacies. Nor had the
>speed of light been reliably established, which plays a big part in the
>whole plane-of-reference bit that's crucial to most of Newton's
>mechanics. The math was correct, and accurately described what was
>known at the time, but we now know more. This all goes back to my
>comment about scientific laws being the best descriptors currently
>available.
>
>Um. I should probably take a moment to disclose that I took a course on
>Newton's mathematics and the scientific revolution in college. :-)
Hmm. I can debate you on the religion part since I majored in religion for
my undergrad studies. I'm much lighter then you on the math, at
present. In about 2 years the problem will be rectified though. I've been
attending math classes and have a new found appreciation for it.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
