Yeah right. Â Newton revolutionized science itself. Â During his time
people at universities had thoughtful discussions but didn't
experiment, trying to figure out the world based on what they just
thought was reasonable.
Where did you learn this crap, the back of a cereal box? This is
nonsense. On my shelf at home, for example, I have a copy of /Priestly
on Electricity/ (4th ed., 1775) in which the author discusses at
length many experiments with electrostatics which were carried out
before the time of Newton.
Oops, that should have been "Priestley", not "Priestly".
Guess he published the book much later then...
<quote>
Sir Isaac Newton, FRS (pronounced /ˈnjuËtÉ™n/; 4 January 1643 – 31
March 1727 [OS: 25 December 1642 – 20 March 1726])[1] was an English
physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist
and theologian. His Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica,
published in 1687, is considered to be the most influential book in
the history of science.
</quote>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton
So Sir Isaac was already dead before the publication you mention.
Yes, I know. Are you under the impression that people who write books
are unable to write about things which happened in the past?
Why do I bother debating with idiots?
Again from the Wikipedia:
<quote>
Joseph Priestley (13 March 1733 (Old Style) – 6 February 1804) was an
18th-century British theologian, Dissenting clergyman, natural
philosopher, educator, and political theorist who published over 150
works. He is usually credited with the discovery of oxygen, having
isolated it in its gaseous state, although Carl Wilhelm Scheele and
Antoine Lavoisier also have a claim to the discovery.[2]
</quote>
Sir Isaac was dead before he was born.
Good grief, you are dense.
Yes, I know that Sir Isaac was dead before Priestley was born. Are you
*still* under the impression that people who write books are unable to
write about things which happened in the past?
Look, here is a quote from the book:
<quote>
[...] no advances were made in electricity till the subject was
undertaken by William Gilbert, a native of Colchester, and a physician
at London; who, in his excellent Latin treatise /de magnete/,
published in the year 1600, relates a great variety of electrical
experiments.
[...]
To him we owe a great augmentation of the lift of electric bodies, as
also the bodies on which electrics can act; and he has carefully noted
several capital circumstances relating to the manner of their action,
though his theory of electricity was very imperfect, as might be
expected.
Amber and jet were, as I observed before, the only substances which,
before the time of Gilbert, were known to have the property of
attracting light bodies when rubber; but he found the same property in
the diamond, sapphire, carbuncle, iris, amethyst, opal, vincentina,
Bristol stone, beryl, and crystal. He also observes that glass,
especially that which is clear and transparent, has the same property;
likewise all factitious gems, made of glass or crystal; glass of
antimony most sparry substances, and belemnites. Lastly, he concludes
his catalogue of electric substances with sulphur, mastic, sealing wax
made of gum lac tinged with various colours, hard rosin, sla gem,
talc, and roche alum. Rosin, he said, possessed this property but in a
small degree, and the three last mentioned substances, only when the
air was clear and free from moisture.
All these substances, he observes, attracted not only straws, but all
metals, all kinds of wood, stones, earth, water, oil; in short,
whatever is solid, and the object of our senses. But he imagined that
air, flame, bodies ignited, and all matter which was extremely rare
was not subject ot this attraction. Gross smoke, he found, was
attracted very sensibly, but that which was attenuated very little.
[...and it goes on...]
</quote>
How about that? Even though Priestley wasn't even born in 1600 (and
neither was Newton) he was nonetheless able to write about experiments
that were carried out back then.
I hope you are a liar or they should revoke your degrees.
Your stupidity.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Wait, I'm not done yet: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
What you show is the endless ability of people to pretend on Usenet.
You wish you had a degree from Oxford.
You dream you have a post-grad degree from Cambridge.
Huh - in the space of a few lines you've gone from "I hope you are a
liar" to outright claiming I'm lying. Care to back that claim up, or -
a long shot, I know - apologise, assuming that the facts of the matter
have finally penetrated that skull of yours?
You fail at basic history of physics.
I gave a quote, and cited my source. Why not try to back up your
version of history with some actual data?