The World of Isaac Newton 

Better look at Dan Winter and his work. Think Newton might not been all that smart.

@@garyerlewine771 elaborate.

@@garyerlewine771 Not all that smart? Whew tough crowd you are lol.

@@josephiscancelled2732 no go do your own homework. ill give you a hint. no i all ready did.

@@garyerlewine771 winter cant even solve algebra problem

he is a robber lol

​@@nipuntiwari5517😂😂😂😂

​@@nipuntiwari5517care to elaborate?

hi.. did you manage it??

wow what if he'd have had parents who Insisted he stay at the farm! lucky man

That's what she said

Ok

@Strøst "The great Pyramid and connection with the Bible". Best is to buy the e-book 3.99 USD. Feedback Newton is no 1 25 new invention in the essay and book no 2 came in Icelandic. This is proven with Mathematics Newton was stunning. 21 doctors have confirmed. Now going to defense.

Lol no it isn't buddy.

It’s maddening.

Also, if I multiply all the primes a sieve gave me, then add 1, I don't think the answer is a multiple involving a prime?

Um, er, no. To be honest, I'm only responding to your first section (to the blank line) because it's so wrong I can't be bothered to read the rest, which is too long in this context. Yes, you are mistaken: not Newton, but Galileo, showed that objects of different weights (same as masses in Galileo's day: Newton started to think about the difference) fall to the ground in the same time. He used inclined planes (the legend is that he dropped balls off the leaning tower of Pisa - apparently not). 32 feet per second squared is not a speed, as you'd have it. It is an acceleration. You've remembered the number, but not the meaning. Every second, the speed of an object falling under gravity at (or near - it's close enough) the surface of the earth increases by 32 feet per second. Or about 9.81 m/s in civilised units that aren't based on an inch being "3 barleycorns, firm and round". To be fair, for decades now (2021), the definition of the inch has actually been 2.54 cm, so the problem is just rounding errors. You seem to be (OK, I did glance at your following text because it became clear the blank line was a mistake) very confused about the difference between speed and acceleration (the rate of change of speed). It's really tricky to get ones head around all this. Sorry if this sounds negative; it wasn't meant to be. If you want to discuss this further, please do.

Another thing occurs to me. Galileo debunked Aristotle's "heavier things fall faster than lighter things" by posing the following thought experiment: suppose you drop a heavy thing and a lighter thing off a leaning tower. Under Aristotle's hypothesis, the heavier thing would land first. Then consider the same experiment, but join the two things together. The combined thing will land at one time but, if the joining object has no (or negligible) weight, then the heavier and lighter objects landed at the same time. Aristotle must be wrong. The ancient greek philosophers loved thinking but were a bit allergic to actually doing experiments to see whether they'd cooked up something that was actually right. They didn't really understand friction, so things needed to keep being pushed to keep moving, as opposed to Newton's realisation (probably not just his) that, if there is nothing to resist motion, things just keep doing what they're doing.

@@davidgould9431 Whether Newton or Galileo, the experiments were flawed due to the abject disparity between the earth and its gravity and any things no matter what the size, dropped or rolled down a plane. 32 ft per second squared merely measures the effect of earth's gravity, more or less constant. It does not account for the gravity of the objects its purports to measure as both or all are too negligible in gravitational pull to record any difference when measured. The measuring device is flawed. If the earth's gravitational pull were stronger, objects would fall at a greater acceleration. That's my thought and I do not think you've overcome it.

@@rockyfjord3753 I wasn't trying to change your mind about anything: just to clarify a few things. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I'm not sure why you think the inclined plane experiment "purports to measure" the "gravity of the objects". It doesn't: it's looking at the effect of the gravitational field of the earth on those objects. In other words, it's the other way round. As you say, the objects create gravitational fields that are negligible in this context so can be ignored - the earth isn't going to move much because of a small weight. Galileo's experiment was simply confirming what his thought experiment implied and Newton later made rigorous: the acceleration of a falling object does not depend on its own mass. Newton showed that F = ma where F is the force on a mass, m, that gives rise to an acceleration, a. He also showed that the force due to gravity is given by F = GMm/r² where G is just some constant, the masses are m and M and the distance between them is r (technically, this only applies to point masses or masses composed of homogenous spherical shells and r is the distance between the centres. It's close enough in our experiment: this is physics, not maths, after all). Equate the two forces and you can cancel the m on each side, giving a = GM/r² meaning the acceleration of an object does not depend on its own mass but only on the mass of the other object and the distance to it (or to its centre). So two different masses falling on the earth will accelerate at the same rate, hitting the ground at the same time. The puzzling thing is why you can equate the two forces in the first place: the m in F = ma is the inertial mass and describes a body's reluctance to move under the influence of a force. The m in F = GMm/r² is the gravitational mass: how much it contributes to the gravitational force. It's not clear that they should be the same, but it turns out they are. That's why you can cancel the m on each side when you equate them. It's a bit tough on Galileo calling his experiment "flawed" from 500 or so years away. He was a very early pioneer of the scientific method and looking for a null result without sensitive enough equipment to be really sure he'd got one. Apparently, it's been confirmed using lasers and tall buildings (in the context of looking at Einstein's general theory of relativity, if I remember rightly (which I may not have), but that's a much bigger can of worms). This comment ended up being far too long - sorry - I hope it made some sense.

@@davidgould9431 You are more knowledgeable than I am. If you fired a cannon ball into orbit around the earth, hypothetically in a similar orbit as the moon... Then if Galileo and Newton were right, the cannon ball should cause tides to ebb and rise same as the moon. Of course the mass of the cannon ball is too small to cause any measurable effect, same as dropping objects from the tower of Pisa. Both the mass of the earth and the masses of the objects [the moon] have to be calculated into speed or rate of falling objects [much the same in my mind]. So the larger moon object adds to the total gravity of the two objects [earth and moon], thus falling into each other faster, or so was Aristotle's take on it. It's mathematical, only experimental in the moon and tides analysis, or so I think.

There are many fiction stories (religion) but only one reality.

Almost all Christians believe the sun is stationary (relatively at least) and the earth revolves around it. Just as science has proven. It does not contradict scripture as it does in the quran. There is a fringe group of flat earthers, but from what I have seen they are just as much non Christian as Christian.

WHY E=MC2 IS NECESSARILY F=MA (ON BALANCE), AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity AS SPACE ON BALANCE: TIME DILATION ULTIMATELY proves ON BALANCE that E=MC2 IS F=ma, as ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS E=mc2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Hence, the Earth AND the Sun are CLEARLY E=MC2 AND F=ma IN BALANCE. (The sky is blue, AND the Earth is ALSO BLUE.) A PHOTON may be placed at the center of WHAT IS THE SUN (as A POINT, of course), AS the reduction of SPACE is offset by (or BALANCED with) the speed of light (c); AS E=MC2 IS F=MA !!!; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. BALANCE and completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. GRAVITATIONAL force/ENERGY IS proportional to (or BALANCED with/as) inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=MC2 IS F=ma; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ("Mass"/ENERGY IS GRAVITY. ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity !!!) Gravity/acceleration involves BALANCED inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE, AS E=mC2 IS F=ma IN BALANCE !!!; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. (Energy has/involves GRAVITY, AND ENERGY has/involves inertia/INERTIAL RESISTANCE.) E=mC2 IS F=ma. This NECESSARILY represents, INVOLVES, AND DESCRIBES what is possible/potential AND actual IN BALANCE, AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is gravity. Gravity IS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy. Great !!! Again, BALANCE AND completeness go hand in hand. It ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense. By Frank DiMeglio

E= MC^2

“The Bible Came from Arabia “, Kamal Salibi,1985 well worth reading. Plus his 3 other bible study books.

Back in those days, everyone was religious. People were far more ignorant, including Newton.

The Bible was written by a bunch of dudes. Somehow their words became God's words. Best scam ever.

@@johnnyq4260 Prove it!

Newton was perfecting ocient mathematical theories. But in English. Check the pyramids.. He never brought any new invemtiipn

Not sure why him being Christian specifically somehow makes him a better scientist.