Credulous skeptics

[Subduction Zone]

Yes. Newton explained the elliptical orbits of planets using his newly discovered law of gravity. he did this during the bubonic plague outbreak when he was about 24 years old.

He didn't publish many of his findings until quite a bit later, though, in Principia.

Maybe he will listed to you. It appears that he is almost purposefully misinterpreting what Tyson said.

I am still waiting for him to support his claim that Halley was the man that Newton was talking with. That actually makes no sense. I just reposted the quote where it says that when he met Halley Newton claimed to have solved that "some time ago". Halley could not have been the inspiration to solve that problem.

 

[Polymath257]

So you're telling me the Halley/Newton encounter occurred before Newton turned 26?

Oddly enough Britannica agrees the meeting occurred when Newton was in 40s. As does virtually every other Google hit.

The only source saying it occurs before Newton turns 26 is Tyson.

Duuude, have you heard of this website called Google?

What makes you think Tyson was talking about Halley?

 

[Hop_David]

Yes. Newton explained the elliptical orbits of planets using his newly discovered law of gravity. he did this during the bubonic plague outbreak when he was about 24 years old.

According to this Wikipedia article Newton derived elliptical orbits in 1676-77 shortly after Huygens' 1673 paper

You claim Newton derived elliptical orbits in 1666? Citation please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to this Wikipedia article Newton derived elliptical orbits in 1676-77 shortly after Huygens' 1673 paper

You claim Newton derived elliptical orbits in 1666? Citation please.

Where does it support that claim?

Once again, you appear to be conflating a date of publishing with when he solved the problem. You appear to be forgetting a quote that I gave you:


" When Halley asked Newton's opinion on the problem of planetary motions discussed earlier that year between Halley, Hooke and Wren,[55] Newton surprised Halley by saying that he had already made the derivations some time ago;"

 

[KWED]

I am not a 'skeptic', I am an strong atheist and an orthodox Hindu following the 'Advaita' (non-dual) philosophy.

You don't have to claim you are a sceptic to be a "self-proclaimed skeptic", apparently.

 

[KWED]

So you agree with Tyson that the famous Halley-Newton encounter took place before Newton turned 26?
And that Newton invented calculus because of Halley's dare? In two months time?
Which of Thony's criticisms do you find flawed and inaccurate?

Have I made any of these claims?
No.

You can't make an outrage thread on the basis of people being misleading or inaccurate, and then do the same yourself.

 

[KWED]

I cite my sources so anyone can examine original context for themselves.

In this case I link to Tyson's video My Man, Sir Isaac Newton:

About 58 seconds into the above video Tyson tells us:

"Then, a friend of his says, “Well, why do these orbits of the planets… Why are they in a shape of an ellipse, sort of flattened circle? Why aren’t… some other shape?” He said, you know, “I can’t… I don’t know. I’ll get back to you.” So he goes… goes home, comes back couple of months later, “Here’s why. They’re actually conic sections, sections of a cone that you cut.” And… And he said, “Well, how did find this out? How did you determine this?” “Well, I had to invent integral and differential calculus to determine this.” Then, he turned 26. Then, he turned 26. We got people slogging through calculus in college just to learn what it is that Isaac Newtown invented on a dare, practically. So that’s my man, Isaac Newton. "

So how am I taking Tyson out of context? He unambiguously states that Newton explained why planets follow elliptical orbits before he turned 26.

Just to be clear, are you arguing that Tyson is claiming that Newton used those actual words in the conversation, that it is a verbatim report of the exchange?

 

[KWED]

I was adding to my above post. You m ight want to check it out. It looks like Britannica is wrong (as is your spelling). Endless sources will tell you that Newton invented calculus when he was 24.

when did newton invent calculus - Google Search

If Tyson said it, it must be wrong.

 

[KWED]

EDIT: Excessive Green Ink is not a good sign:

Green ink

"But that article says that 'green ink' may just have been an urban legend, so you are deliberately spreading falsehoods!!!!"

 

[Hop_David]

What makes you think Tyson was talking about Halley?

Why assume that he was talking about Halley?

It seems obvious that Tyson's time line on the right is an addled attempt to describe actual history (left).

But you want to argue they were two separate events? Go for it.

What's the name of Newton's friend in this 1666 meeting? Can you provide a citation showing that such a meeting occurred before Newton turned 26?

Why did Newton's friend from the earlier encounter keep Newton's momentous discovery secret for the next 18 years?

Newton actually worked out elliptical orbits in 1676-77. About a decade after the meeting Tyson describes. Tyson tells us Newton worked it out within a two months of his friend's question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

View attachment 65384

It seems obvious that Tyson's time line on the right is an addled attempt to describe actual history (left).

But you want to argue they were two separate events? Go for it.

What's the name of Newton's friend in this 1666 meeting? Can you provide a citation showing that such a meeting occurred before Newton turned 26?

Why did Newton's friend from the earlier encounter keep Newton's momentous discovery secret for the next 18 years?

Newton actually worked out elliptical orbits in 1676-77. About a decade after the meeting Tyson describes. Tyson tells us Newton worked it out within a two months of his friend's question.

How does that article support your claims? You are the one that always demands a direct quote and I do not see that there. That is a discussion about centrifugal force. And that relates more to tides than it does to orbits. You tried to invent a false narrative, that it was the challenge of Halley that got Newton to try to work out the orbits. He had already done that. The links that I have provided support that he did so when he worked out calculus.

And I never made a direct claim about the friend. I only made the claim about the date of when he worked out orbits. Orbits are not that hard to work out if you cheat a bit and assume that the Sun is stationary. It isn't, it does move a bit which is why orbits undergo precession. But with the simplified version it does explain elliptical orbits. It does not explain precession. Newtonian physics can still calculate precession fairly well, but it is a more complex problem.

 

[Hop_David]

How does that article support your claims?

I guess being three paragraphs down it's hard to find. Hope this helps:

(From this Wikipedia article)

And I never made a direct claim about the friend.

You and another fellow were asking me why did I assume Tyson was talking about Halley?

I pointed out that Tyson's timeline sure sounds like an addled description of the Newton Halley encounter.

If you want to defend Tyson's timeline I suggest you find some evidence of the 1666 meeting Tyson describes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I guess being three paragraphs down it's hard to find. Hope this helps:

View attachment 65398
(From this Wikipedia article)




You and another fellow were asking me why did I assume Tyson was talking about Halley?

I pointed out that Tyson's timeline sure sounds like an addled description of the Newton Halley encounter.

If you want to defend Tyson's timeline I suggest you find some evidence of the 1666 meeting Tyson describes.

It does not say that was when Newton first discovered this. You are jumping to conclusions again. Did you forget that I said one of the reasons that I like Wikipedia is that they cite their sources? I often check the sources. Guess what happened when I did?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have yet to see @Hop_David own up to his error about his Halley claim. I wonder if he will own up to his error about the centrifugal force claim? Ironically he indirectly provided the evidence that in Newton's own words that he solved this problem in 1665.

 

[Hop_David]

Did you forget that I said one of the reasons that I like Wikipedia is that they cite their sources?

I don't see any citations on these paragraphs you like to trot out:

And it's perhaps true that Newton used calculus to explain elliptical orbits. Although his arguments in Principia are more geometric in nature. But the footnote free article you cite does not say when Newton used calculus to demonstrate elliptical orbits.

So far you have providing no evidence whatsoever defending Newton's timeline.

Who is this friend that prompted Newton to invent calculus with his dare? If not Halley, then who?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see any citations on these paragraphs you like to trot out:
View attachment 65401

And it's perhaps true that Newton used calculus to explain elliptical orbits. Although his arguments in Principia are more geometric in nature. But the footnote free article you cite does not say when Newton used calculus to demonstrate elliptical orbits.

So far you have providing no evidence whatsoever defending Newton's timeline.

Who is this friend that prompted Newton to invent calculus with his dare? If not Halley, then who?

I didn't think that you would own up to your repeated errors. Those sources implied that Newton first determined that orbits were elliptical due to the inverse square nature of gravity when he invented calculus. They do not come right out and say it. I don't care about the "almost on a bet" claim, I am only discussing the date of when Newton first claimed to have solved this.

I gave you a hint when I pointed out that the resources of the centrifugal force article that you linked refuted you, again.

From one of the links for the centrifugal article:

"In the beginning of the year 1665 I found the method of approximating series and the rule for reducing any dignity of any binomial into such a series. The same year, in May, I found the method of tangents of Gregory and Slusius, and in November had the direct method of fluxions, and the next year in January had the theory of colors, and in May following I had entrance into the inverse method of fluxions.



And the same year I began to think of gravity extending to the orb of the moon, and having found out how to estimate the force with which a globe revolving within a sphere presses the surface of the sphere, from Kepler’s rule of the periodical times of the planets being in a sesquialterate proportion of their distances from the centers of their orbs, I deduced that the forces which keep the planets in their orbs must be reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the centers about which they revolve: and thereby compared the force requisite to keep the moon in her orb with the force of gravity at the surface of the earth, and found they answer pretty nearly."


Anni Mirabiles


He later reworked the problem with more detail with Huygens, and even more detail later on. But the claim was when he first determined why orbits are elliptical and that was when Tyson said that he did. More detail in later works does not negate his first work.

 

[Hop_David]

Those sources implied that Newton first determined that orbits were elliptical due to the inverse square nature of gravity when he invented calculus.

That source had no citations. You make a lot of noise how you like Wikipedia because they cite their sources. Then you offer a page with no citations.

They do not come right out and say it. I don't care about the "almost on a bet" claim, I am only discussing the date of when Newton first claimed to have solved this.

You still haven't provided a citation showing a date when Newton derived elliptical orbits.

And the same year I began to think of gravity extending to the orb of the moon, and having found out how to estimate the force with which a globe revolving within a sphere presses the surface of the sphere, from Kepler’s rule of the periodical times of the planets being in a sesquialterate proportion of their distances from the centers of their orbs, I deduced that the forces which keep the planets in their orbs must be reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the centers about which they revolve: and thereby compared the force requisite to keep the moon in her orb with the force of gravity at the surface of the earth, and found they answer pretty nearly."

As I've pointed out several times it is almost trivial to demonstrate inverse square gravity for circular orbits given Kepler's 3rd law and an idea of inertia.

Wren, Hooke and Halley had deduced inverse square gravity for circular orbits.

But not for elliptical orbits. That is one of the reasons Halley sought Newton. Again, Wren had offered a prize showing inverse square gravity implied Kepler's laws. Demonstrating elliptical orbits is somewhat more difficult than circular orbits.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That source had no citations. You make a lot of noise how you like Wikipedia because they cite their sources. Then you offer a page with no citations.

So what? That was a weird comment. I told you that I actually prefer Wikipedia because it does have citations. Some people complain about Wikipedia, but those people also tend to be unable to find any reliable sources for their beliefs.

You still haven't provided a citation showing a date when Newton derived elliptical orbits.

Yes, I did, In my previous source. I even posted the quote from Newton in that source. That was one of the sources that was listed in the Wiki article that you quoted. Part of your quote even came from that source. But as usual you did not understand it.

As I've pointed out several times it is almost trivial to demonstrate inverse square gravity for circular orbits given Kepler's 3rd law and an idea of inertia.

Wren, Hooke and Halley had deduced inverse square gravity for circular orbits.

But not for elliptical orbits. That is one of the reasons Halley sought Newton. Again, Wren had offered a prize showing inverse square gravity implied Kepler's laws. Demonstrating elliptical orbits is somewhat more difficult than circular orbits.

I am not so sur about that. The source in my above post seems to indicate that. Calculus allows one to calculate orbits. And this problem appears to be why he invented the method in the first palce. But if he does not say it in terms that you like you will not accept it.

 

[Hop_David]

Yes, I did, In my previous source. I even posted the quote from Newton in that source.

Oh my gosh, you're correct! The Anni Mirabilis source does indeed give a date Newton derived elliptical orbits. In Newton's own words:

"At length, in the winter between the years 1676 and 1677, I found the proposition that by a centrifugal force reciprocally as the square of the distance a planet must revolve in an ellipsis about the center of the force placed in the lower umbilicus of the ellipsis, and with a radius drawn to that center, describe areas proportional to the times. And in the winter between the years 1683 and 1684,"

And it tells how Newton discovered inverse square for spherical shells in 1665.

So Newton's own notes verifies my assertion that Newton started working on the problem in 1665 but made a break through 12 years later in 1676 and 1677.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LO! Still ignoring why Newton said that he invented calculus in the first place. You even admitted as much. You do not need calculus to reason out that there is an inverse square relation in "circular orbits"