Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Sir Isaac Newton: The world Will End In 2060 174

Posted by timothy from the this-just-in dept.
Rikardon writes "A professor at King's College in Halifax has discovered, among the papers of Sir Isaac Newton, a prediction by this 'most influential scientist who ever lived' that the world would end in 2060. Those narrow-minded souls who still believe that devout religious faith is incompatible with fervent scientific inquiry are probably unaware that Newton 'was a theologian who wrote well over a million words on Biblical subjects,' and who devoted 'something like 55 to 60 years' studying the Book of Revelation."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sir Isaac Newton: The world Will End In 2060 More

Sir Isaac Newton: The world Will End In 2060

Comments Filter:

  • Einstein (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 24, 2003 @05:51PM (#5373593)
    Yes, but Einstein's theory has the world ending in 2055.


    • Of course... Leibniz is the real father of the 2060 apolcalypse.
    • If Dubya, Jerry Falwell, and all their fundie lunatic friends get their way, the Apocalypse will happen this year. They were bummed when Y2K fizzled. They thought they'd have their harps and wings, and be shaking hands with their good buddy Jesus by now. Why is Bush, A born again Christian, obsessed with Iraq, which poses no danger to us, and ignoring North Korea, who have nukes, the means to deliver them, and an increasingly belligerent tone? Because the Korean Peninsula is not mentioned anywhere in The Book of Revelations, but Iraq is Babylon. The fundies want their armageddon, and they want it now! They pray for it every day. The end of time is their sole obsession. Don't believe me? Hang out with some of them, or read their literature. These people are as dangerous as Osama, and one of them is in the White House!
    • But in the limiting case, Einstein's theory reduces to Newton's, thus validating Newton's Classical approach.
  • So what is this supposed to mean? Even Newton was a believer, so we all must tremble because the world is going to end in 2060? I really don't get the relevance of this all...
    • I don't think we're meant to believe Newton's predictions. But it's interesting from a historical perspective to know that this father of science also held religious beliefs.

    • Take a look at the article... (Score:5, Informative)

      by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Monday February 24, 2003 @06:08PM (#5373788) Journal
      The story submission blows this *waaay* out of proportion. Way to go, Slashdot editors, letting this one through.

      Basically, if one reads the article, one finds that Newton made the prediction because *he* was fed up with people setting dates and wanted to put an end to it, and figured that with his repution, he could quiet them down by giving a different date from all of the rest of them.

      He wrote: "This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fancifull men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, & by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail."

      Goddamn it, Slashdot stories frequently have incredibly overblown headlines. You have to go read the article to get a *modicum* of useful information anymore.
      • Not to mention that Newton was completely bonkers by that time, from breathing all these poisonous quicksilver fumes in his lab. Makes it all the more interesting that he decided to divert his intelligence to study religious matters at that point, hehe... Could there be a link between heavy-metal-induced madness and religion? :D

        Daniel
      • Basically, if one reads the article, one finds that Newton made the prediction because *he* was fed up with people setting dates and wanted to put an end to it, and figured that with his repution, he could quiet them down by giving a different date from all of the rest of them.

        The article is confusingly laid out but I don't think that's correct. It seems to be saying this: Newton's prediction of a date for the end of the world is surprising, since he generally opposed making such predictions.

        My impression is that the quote "This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fancifull men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, & by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail." is from a different context, not a preface to this prediction. Rereading the article though, you may be right.

      • I think you're right, although the article is pretty senstionalistic (sp?) as well.
      • Slashdot stories frequently have incredibly overblown headlines. You have to go read the article to get a *modicum* of useful information anymore.

        Well, duh. If you could fit the useful information in a headline you wouldn't need the headline. Headlines are always brief summaries of an article, and necessarily can't summarize all the points of an article.

        In fact, in magazines and newspapers, a headline is effectively advertising: intended to get your attention, not convey information.

  • First Post! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    May as well go for first, since Last Post won't happen for another 57 years...
  • "Those narrow-minded souls who still believe that devout religious faith is incompatible with fervent scientific inquiry are probably unaware...." I guess I am one of the narrow minded ones, but if I may quote Bertrand Russel "Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we abopt reason and science as our guidelines." Let the flames begin..
    • I get modded as flamebait, yet the submitter gets a story posted that begs for an attack. Calling non-beleivers narrow minded souls is somehow acceptable. I understand my comment was to provoke strong emotions in those with a religous justification for name calling, but be fair. Flamebait I am not. Just trying to balance things out for us non-religous folk.
      • I know this will get modded to troll immediately, because I'm daring to disagree with the "normal" Slashdot contingent, but here goes:

        I get modded as flamebait, yet the submitter gets a story posted that begs for an attack.

        I didn't see your original post -- it must have been modded down to troll.

        You're overlooking a tremendous irony of Slashdot (and I am not being sarcastic). This is a "geek site" where most of the posters are highly intelligent. The problem is this: you're dealing with a group of people that are focused on intelligence and value IQ so highly. Whenever you say something that triggers an emotional response, people get ticked and don't realize it. They're too focused on their "intelligence" to pay attention to their emotions. They react emotionally and justify it intellectually, without ever seeing or admitting they're reacting emotionally.

        This happens when people rate posts and respond to posts.

        If, however, you start or end your post with, "This will probably get modded to troll because I'm saying something a lot of people'll disagree with...," you have a much better chance of people reading your post and thinking about their reaction instead of just having a knee jerk reaction. A phrase like that catches the "brain" and engages people on an intellectual level as opposed to an emotional level.

        Of course, you'd better read this fast, since I'm sure it'll be modded to troll quickly! ;)

  • Here's my crazy ass theory.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dr. Bent ( 533421 ) <<ben> <at> <int.com>> on Monday February 24, 2003 @06:02PM (#5373698) Homepage
    From my website [rr.com]

    Theory #29 - Information theory 101

    All belief systems, from Catholicism to Physics to Astrology, are essentially the same. To build a belief system, you first need axioms. These are the facts that you take for granted. They do not need to be proven, usually because they cannot be. They form the foundation of your belief system and without them (all of them) the system will not hold up.

    An example of an Axiom is "God is omniscient and omnipotent". It cannot be proven true or false by logical or experimental means. Indeed, experiments themselves are based on a scientific Axiom; that all phenomena are repeatable, given their causes can be re-created. This is not necessarily true in, say, the Christian belief system, where God can cause miracles to occur once and never again.

    Once you have your set of Axioms, you can start to build your rule base. Rules are what make your system useful. All your rules must be based on either axioms or other rules. If any of your rules contradict each other, then either your logic is flawed, or one (or more) of your axioms are contradictory and must be changed (along with all the rules based off that axiom).

    The reason humans build belief systems is to add order to a chaotic world. By building a mental construct that says 'Here are the rules' these systems allow humans to cope with each other, our environment, and ourselves with some degree of certainty. However, it is important to remember that ALL belief systems are simply mental constructs designed to form the world into a model that we can understand. A rose is what it is regardless of what we call it, or what significance we place on it's existence.

    • yeah (Score:3, Funny)

      by sydlexic ( 563791 )
      this is all based on the flawed premise that your so-called 'belief system' has to be logical and self-consistent. hi, let me introduce you to the human capacity for rationalization.
      • Ah yes, but the process of "rationalization" simply involves adding and subtracting axioms until the system makes sense again.

        like so:

        Axioms:
        1) Stealing is bad
        2) I need food to live

        Rules:
        a) I'm hungry
        b) The store has food
        c) I have no money

        rationalization() {
        remove(#1)
        add(#3)
        }

        New Axioms:
        2) I need food to live
        3) Stealing is bad, unless you're hungry

    • I am in agreement for the most part, and it was nice to include an example of fundamental axiomatic construction by declaring a rose to _be_. Of course, the rose may not exist except as a perceptual hallucination, but if you need to believe in an ultimate and arbitrary reality which we percieve imperfectly, as compared, for example, to a meaningless sea of chaos on which we impose order, then that too is fine.

      There is no bottom, 'Axioms' go all the way down. What gets fun is learning to be able to shift fundamental (personal) axioms. It lets you join other people's 'games' - for what else can you call a group of people all agreeing to operate accordingt o a set of self-imposed rules.

      For example, what if a rose was not?
    • One reason that some more "secular" people think they're on firmer philosophical ground than the more religious-minded is that they think their axioms are more fundamental. There's this concept of "first principles" in mathematics (which is what physics is based on, or maybe the other way around, whichever you like). I can't seem to find good information through Google, but I think the idea is that these principles are something you can "know" a priori. One problem I have with some religions is that they seem to be set up so that if you weren't raised in a society that already had all of the foundations of the religion documented, you would have no way of discovering it or coming to believe in it (consider the over-used "child growing up in the jungle away from civilization", as a thought experiment). From a sort of pragmatic perspective, the axiom of "use your hands to get food" is much more productive an axiom than "find words to praise your deity", and I guess the idea would be that these more pragmatic axioms are much more closely related to mathematical or physical axioms than the religious ones seem to be. Anyway, I don't want to go on about this, since it is pretty far off-topic (and I'm not exactly presenting it as a well-thought-out argument), but I hope that's some food for thought or discussion.

    • All belief systems are not the same. In science, one chooses empirically justified axioms. As long as there is a common bond of experience, we can model those experiences with axioms. We pick and choose things from the infinite world of mathematical truth to imperfectly model the real world. If our axioms are very close to reality, we can derive many levels of real consequence.

      Of course, you can pick any set of axioms and tie those axioms to the world in strange and imprecise way. This lack of rigor makes it impossible to derive consequences of any meaningful depth. Even if you could derive new theorems, why should they help describe the objects they model. If the axioms don't describe experience, why should the theorems.

    • You have no idea what you're talking about. Go back, read some Karl Popper, and then get back to me.
  • "He noted a number of time periods are listed in the Book of Daniel from the Old Testament. One of these is 1,260 days, which Newton interpreted as 1,260 years, based on a day-per-year principle. The time frame is one in which Newton interpreted to stand for a period when the church (Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Anglican) would be mired in deep corruption. In his attempt to decode the mind of God, Newton determined that 1260 date actually began in 800 AD, a time when the Roman Catholic church was given political power over countries. He then added 1260 to 800 to arrive at the date of 2060 for the Apocalypse. It is mentioned twice in his manuscripts." So he sees 1260 days referring to something in the old testiment then interpruts that to mean years then adds it to the year the Roman catholic church gains power. Sounds like he added together some arbitrary numbers to me. What is his reason for interpruting 1260 days as years anyways and why does that added to the year the roman catholic chuch gained power mean anything? Maybe Newton went mad after studying the book of Revelations for 60 years.
    • That is a pretty common interpretation of Biblical prophecy, since the passage I believe you are refering to speaks of weeks, which at the time in the Hebrew language, could have refered to groups of seven anything, days, months, years. There are all sorts of interpretations of that passage of scripture, the modern pentecostal view is that there are 69 weeks (of years), which have passed ending with the first Palm Sunday, and ushered in the church age, which is of indeterminate length, which will be capped by the 50th week (of 7 years) or the Great Tribulation, and that the 1290 days (about 3.5 years) refers to the days in the first and second halves of the Tribulation, which are explained in great detail in the Revelation of John. The founder of the Jehovah's Whitnesses had an interpretation that called for the Rapture to occur in 1840 or 1841, I believe, it just depends on how you set your start date.

    • Day for a year (Score:4, Informative)

      by leonbrooks ( 8043 ) <SentByMSBlast-No ... .brooks.fdns.net> on Monday February 24, 2003 @10:48PM (#5375915) Homepage
      From Ezekiel 4:6 - `I have appointed thee each day for a year.' There is much supporting text, but basically it has been so popular because it works: it matches history rather nicely.

      The foundational system of interpretation that uses this extensively and fits history so well is called Historicism, and the Roman Catholic Church don't like it very much because it identifies them as antiChrist... so Alcazar and Ribera, a couple of Jesuits, invented Futurism (which tears of and places a critical chunk of the prophecy waaay in the future, now supported by the Catholic-influenced Christian Right) and Praeterism (which uses a minor king name Antiochus Epiphanes as antiChrist, treats the 1260 days as literal, and pronounces the prophecy fulfilled and ended, now supported by other factions who can't buy Futurism but don't like Historicism because it's an ecumenical barrier).

      Sorry you asked? (-:

      • Re:Day for a year (Score:3, Insightful)

        by young-earth ( 560521 )
        If you read all of Ezekiel 4, you can see that God was assigning Ezekiel a surrogate punishment for the transgressions of Israel. This is just like using Numbers 16 to say a day is a year; forcing that interpretation on the rest of the Bible is ignoring the specific context that each passage contains. If you're going to engage in doing that, then you have to deal with Peter who says in 2Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

        Neither interpretation (a day is a year or a day is a thousand years) should be used outside its context.

        For further details of why this should not be used, see this previous post [slashdot.org].

  • Come on now (Score:4, Funny)

    by RedWolves2 ( 84305 ) on Monday February 24, 2003 @06:03PM (#5373716) Homepage Journal
    Bush only has a year left in office. The world will end before then!


    • > Bush only has a year left in office. The world will end before then!

      Surely he can count on the 5 votes he needs for a second term?

      • Why did my TV suddenly decide that I wanted to see three specials about Michael Jackson every week?

        ...make sure it doesn't have a copy of WindowsCE skerricked away inside somewhere. They might have slipped you a DRM update, interframe, or something like that. (-:

        As for Dubya, yes, he's living proof that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

  • From the article it seems that Newton simply decided to interpret one day as one year and then added 1260 (from the Book of Daniel) to the year the Church was given political power (800AD) to derive his date. This doesn't seem like a very scientific way of doing things. Why did he choose to interpret a day as a year. What was his reasoning behind that? I think someone as scientific as Newton would have had a little more of an explanation as to why he chose those numbers. Unless the article is leaving out some VERY important details this just seems like a fake to me.

    • From the article it seems that Newton simply decided to interpret one day as one year and then added 1260 (from the Book of Daniel) to the year the Church was given political power (800AD) to derive his date. This doesn't seem like a very scientific way of doing things. Why did he choose to interpret a day as a year. What was his reasoning behind that? I think someone as scientific as Newton would have had a little more of an explanation as to why he chose those numbers. Unless the article is leaving out some VERY important details this just seems like a fake to me.

      I don't really like the article posted, there are many others and the one listed here didn't underscore that they really don't know why wrote everything he did. They said he wrote a number of time periods. That hardly means Newton thought 1260 + 800 = 2060 Oohooh that's it!!

      This article [suntimes.com] seems a little more brief, but it says what is known without sensational speculation.

    • How soon you forget, we are talking about religion, not science. Just because a scientist is talking/writing about religion does not make it science. It (religion/bible) is still just arbitrary. Look at how many mistakes there are in print. I am supposed to believe, or have faith, that there are none in the bible? Puhlease!

  • Notes aren't Predictions (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Cokelee ( 585232 ) on Monday February 24, 2003 @06:07PM (#5373772)

    As this article [suntimes.com] mentions. he scribbled this in his notes. Do you write notes that you want to go public and have everyone think that you devoutly believed it?

    Think about it. He may not even really believe this, he may have just wrote it down because it popped into his head, not because years of his research proved it. C'mon . . .

  • newton had his off decades... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jimbis ( 451242 ) on Monday February 24, 2003 @06:07PM (#5373773)
    Please remember that Newton had lengthy periods of what can charitably be described as "screaming nervous breakdowns". He spent far too long losing himself in alchemy and frantic attempts to interpret the book of revalations etc.

  • January 19, 2038 - the 32-bit integer based on the Unix Epoch rolls over. Y2K got attention from the mainstream media because the numbers were nice and round, but after all the predictions of doom (read: hype) and the lack of visible incidents (because they all happened in between 1996 and 1999) for the media to report on, no one will care enough to handle the 2038 problem.

    Unless we can give it a snappy name - maybe Y2KXXXVIII, to mix roman and arabic numerals with the metric system `=).

    • Maybe Sir Isaac was only wrong about the beginning of the Epoch.

      Put it in late 1991 (oh, Linux's birth?) instead of 1970 and it the pieces fit perfectly.

      We can't blame him for foreseeing Linux and not GNU nor UNIX - after all, legend says he's been hit by an Apple - which indeed with OS X now shares the end of the world with all of us believers :)

  • Those narrow-minded souls who still believe that devout religious faith is incompatible with fervent scientific inquiry are probably unaware that Newton 'was a theologian who wrote well over a million words on Biblical subjects,' and who devoted 'something like 55 to 60 years' studying the Book of Revelation.


    Now that's one random statement.

  • Battle of Armageddon (Score:5, Informative)

    by jeramybsmith ( 608791 ) on Monday February 24, 2003 @06:18PM (#5373913)
    Mr. Newton was a scientist so I am sure he would appreciate the following about the battle of armageddon from "An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural " (jref.sawco.com):

    "Although commonly used as a designation for the end of the world, this name actually applies to a real geographical location in Israel near Mt. Carmel, about five miles from the coastal city of Haifa. It was the site of several important battles in ancient history.

    According to the predictions of St. John in Apocalypse, a battle between good and evil will take place there at some unspecified time, producing a river of human blood "to the height of a horse's bridle'' for a distance of 200 miles. Assuming that (a) all the blood were to be drained from each victim's body at the same moment, that (b) the "river'' is only ten feet wide, and it does not flow at all, that (c) the horse is rather small, it would mean that some 360,000,000 persons would have to be slaughtered during this battle, all simultaneously. Since the area cannot itself hold that number of persons standing should-to-shoulder, it appears that St. John's figures are poorly arrived at. But perhaps that is one of the properties of a miracle. "
  • Although biblical studies never really interested me, some of the "coincidences" that have arisen from it have.

    Although I won't stand by the sources, I have seen some rather compelling and well made arguments over the book of Revelations, Job, and the Tanakh's "predictions."

    After reading the bible myself a couple times out of dogged curiousity, I found some passages that aired disturbingly of our situation today. I swear on my lady's ass that some of those passages are analogies for the creation of the UN. Furthermore I could've sworn Jeremiah predicted World War 2.

    Being one who still hates born agains, I think religious fervor skipped this reader. There are still alot of things about the bible that leave me skeptical, but one thing I will vouch for is the eerie similarities between some of the scenarios proposed in the bible and the current situation we find ourselves in (on the brink of WW3, UN losing it's power slowly).

    Check it out, even if you're not a fan of religion, knowing the bible well makes a killer advantage on your behalf the next time that overzealous Christian next door starts preaching. Kind of sad one of the Bible's biggest uncertainties is itself ;)
    • Is it prediction or pattern matching? The brain is a powerful organ designed to impose a bit of order on chaos. Fitting archaic and stilted language onto past events is easy. The true test of predictions would be to determine it beforehand. Make your predictions, seal them away and check on them after they have expired. If the bible contains prophecies, and the bible is literally the uncorrupt word of God then they should all come true.
  • Today and Today Only! A half price sale on END OF THE WORLD INSURANCE. Visit www.Newton666.com and get protected today! Don't leave your loved ones behind! A simple $5000 polcy started today will ensure that you or your heir will be able to board a rocket to take you off-world, on December 31, 2059. NO RETURNS!

  • Devout religious faith is usually the culprit... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eXtro ( 258933 ) on Monday February 24, 2003 @06:22PM (#5373951) Homepage
    Those narrow-minded souls who still believe that devout religious faith is incompatible with fervent scientific inquiry are probably unaware that Newton 'was a theologian who wrote well over a million words on Biblical subjects,' and who devoted 'something like 55 to 60 years' studying the Book of Revelation."

    Well, nose-thumbing on the submitters part aside, what does this prove? Isaac Newton was Christian? OK, but this isn't news. Way back in grade school and high school science classes we learned about this. We also learned that the Vatican wasn't entirely impressed with Newton's investigations which doesn't really mean much either. Newton was a believer in the bible, apparently a very devout one who believed that the bible was true and correct. The areas of his investigations didn't reveal anything that contradicted the bible, at least in his opinion. If in 2060 passes by uneventfully (or even eventfully but still passes by) will that mean that the bible has been disproven? No. It won't be proven either.


    The problem that most people have with the combination of religion and science is that religion often tries to impose what appears in the bible over what we have learned through experience and conjecture. Science as it is supposed to be practiced is a constantly self-correcting body of knowledge. This body of knowledge is used to produce a working model of the universe. In Newton's time the force = mass / acceleration was accurate enough to describe most things that they investigated. Time passed and there were problems with this. To a first approximation in most peoples lives this is still accurate, but if you're a cosmologist you'll want a more accurate model which includes Einstein's theories as an example. If you're looking at very small things rather than very large you'll be interested in quantum theory and so on.


    Science evolves (a word that puts a furrow in the brow of some religious people) based on a refinement of information and the advancement of knowledge. If based on your religious conviction you insist that the speed of light in a vacuum isn't 3*10^8 m/s or that things do in fact go faster than it or that the sun is the center of the universe then science has a problem with that. It's easily reconcilable if you can find actual evidence to support your theory, scripture doesn't count.

    • later, they realized that you got much more accurate results with f = m * a and the units worked out, too! :)

      (I know, it's the mathematical equivalent of a spelling flame, sue me.)
    • Isaac Newton was Christian? OK, but this isn't news. Way back in grade school and high school science classes we learned about this. We also learned that the Vatican wasn't entirely impressed with Newton's investigations which doesn't really mean much either.

      Not surprising when you sonsider that Newton was an Anglican and quite on the outs with the Vatican. After all look what the Vatican did to Gallileo not that much earlier (Newton was born the year Gallileo died).

      The problem that most people have with the combination of religion and science is that religion often tries to impose what appears in the bible over what we have learned through experience and conjecture.

      "Often" is rather overstating the case. While there is a vocal minority of Christian Fundamentalists in the US with their crusade against Evolution, the vast majority of Christians worldwide belong to denominations which see no conflict between Science and the Bible.

  • PROOF THAT NEWTON IS THE DEVIL!!!11 (Score:5, Funny)

    by tunah ( 530328 ) <sam AT krayup DOT com> on Monday February 24, 2003 @06:23PM (#5373960) Homepage
    One of these is 1,260 days, which Newton interpreted as 1,260 years, based on a day-per-year principle... Newton determined that 1260 date actually began in 800 AD. He then added 1260 to 800 to arrive at the date of 2060 for the Apocalypse.

    PROOF THAT NEWTON IS EVIL:

    N-E-W-T-O-N = 14+5+23+20+15+14 = 91

    Add this to the date of his death (1727): 1818

    Flip this upside down: 8181.

    Take away the year of his birth (1642): 6539

    Add GRAVITY (7+18+1+22+9+20+25=102): 6641

    Add 10 (newton had ten fingers): 6651

    Gravity is an inverse square law, operating in three dimensions so multiply by the inverse square of 3: 739.

    Subtract his age when he died (85): 654

    Add 24/3, the date this story was published if you're british (which he was): 662.

    Finally, add the number of laws of motion he created (3): 665.

    Fuck.

  • Wow, what flamebait! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by GuyMannDude ( 574364 ) on Monday February 24, 2003 @06:28PM (#5374025) Journal

    Those narrow-minded souls who still believe that devout religious faith is incompatible with fervent scientific inquiry are probably unaware that Newton ...

    I'm pretty shocked that the editors let this tirade go through. Can't we have people simply submit storied without adding their two cents in anymore? Submitters, please save your editorial comments for the "Comments" section.

    Regarding those narrow-minded simpletons such as myself, there are plenty of intellectuals throughout history who have held dubious beliefs that we have chosen to ignore. Plato was a big supporter of slavery. Tesla believed he had been contacted by aliens. Linus Pauling claimed Vitamin C possessed all kinds of miraculous abilities. So what? Is the submitter saying that if I admire these men for their scientific achievements, that I am somehow required to accept all their beliefs?

    I may admire Plato's philosophical ability without accepting his love of slavery. Similarly, I can respect Newton's contributions to mathematics and physics without deciding that devout religous faith and skeptical scientific inquiry are natural compliments to one another.

    GMD

  • IN OLD ENGLAND (Score:4, Funny)

    by tunah ( 530328 ) <sam AT krayup DOT com> on Monday February 24, 2003 @06:32PM (#5374070) Homepage
    The world ends Newton!

  • I stumbled..... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by auferstehung ( 150494 )

    on some of Sir Isaac's theological ramblings while exploring the library stacks in college. It is amazing how someone who is absolutely brilliant in one area can make a complete ass of himself in another.

    For those who would like a taste of the wild side, see historicist.com [historicist.com]

    I'm sticking to the Principia.
  • ....so why the big deal about the religous aspects he was just being a scientist. Perhaps he was also tired of being threatened with ex communication if he didnt fake it at least. :)

  • Wrong date (Score:2, Funny)

    by edbarrett ( 150317 )

    My Newton's going to have a problem in 2010 [drissman.com]. The ReadMe [drissman.com] says the clock stops for the last time in 2920, but I'll probably have a HUD by then [chuma.org].

    Damn, I feel like I've been Newton trolling all day or something.

  • It is true he consumed himself during the latter stage of his life with the search for God, but it's also true he was going crazy from working with too much mercury. The world's most influential scientist gets Mad Hatter's and starts searching for an ontological proof for the existence of God - I still wouldn't put much stock in it.

  • Keeping busy... (Score:4, Funny)

    by umofomia ( 639418 ) on Monday February 24, 2003 @06:56PM (#5374322) Journal
    A man who died a virgin [straightdope.com] has to keep himself busy somehow. :)

  • according to different sources (Score:3, Funny)

    by QEDog ( 610238 ) on Monday February 24, 2003 @07:09PM (#5374446)
    Atari: the world will end in the 2600

    Hanoi: the world will end when you solve the 2^64 disks hanoi tower

    AOL: the world will end when you switch out from AOL

    Intel: the world will end in the 8086

    FF6: when kefka moves the towers

    • Microsoft: The world ain't done till Linux won't run.

      Intel/AMD: Intel says the end of the world will be in 3000 years. AMD says it will be in 20 years, but they point out that 20 AMD years is really the same as 3000 Intel years due to the year-myth.

      Slashdot: The world will end after 64 consecutive stories without a dupe.

      Max Headroom: The world will end 20 minutes into the future.

      Scientology: When Xenu escapes from his volcano prision.

      Capt. Kirk: The.... world.... will.... end.... when.... I.... finally.... finish.... speaking.... this.... sentence.

      Capt. Picard: Lets all get together and vote on it.

      Sisko: The world's not ending on MY watch dammit!

      Capt. Archer: Who knows? Continuity is shot to hell and the timeline is a mess.

      Bugzilla: When lines-of-code per bug triggers a division by zero error.

      RMS: The correct term is GNU/end_of_the_world.

      BSD: The world is dying!

      Steve Jobs: The end of the world is going to be Amazingly Great!

      Steve Spielberg: The end of the world will be re-written with a completely different ending.

      Java: For cross-platform compatability the world will end at the same time on all platforms, but it will happen slowly.

      C: The world will end faster than with Java, but it will have a buffer overrun vulnerability.

      C++: You can overload the end of the world, but the results are undefined and implementation specific.

      Perl: I wrote down exactly when the world is going to end, but now I can't read it.

      Ada: Can't tell you when the world will end because government specs require that data to be encapsulated.

      Amazon.com: People who wonder about the end of the world also wear Clean Underwear and Ladybug Rain Boots.

      Google: The world will end on the date the most people think it will end.

      Bill Clinton: My lawyer says that you'll have to define "the" before I can answer that question.

      The SciFi channel: The world will end again three hours later.

      Civ2 Civ3: The worls will end in 2020 or 2050, but you can continue with no further scoring.

      End of the world poll:
      o Today
      o Tomorrow
      o Next week
      o Next year
      o Never
      * Cowboy Neal

      -

  • Actually... (Score:4, Funny)

    by drivers ( 45076 ) on Monday February 24, 2003 @07:31PM (#5374654)
    The world is going to end in 2060.000013. He forgot to account for general relativity.

  • Newton's contribution to science and mathematics (Score:5, Insightful)

    by idommp ( 134503 ) on Monday February 24, 2003 @07:36PM (#5374696)
    ended well before his 30th birthday. After that he made a complete fool of himself with his attempts to apply his rapidly dimishing mental abilities to "decoding" the Bible. I was a physics student back in the days when the History of Science was still considered a necessary part of training as a scientist. As I recall from Newton's biographys, he made a number of attempts to date Biblical events, including creation, and missed every one by at least an order of magnitude. No one who has any knowledge of Newton's life and work is likely to consider this "prediction" as anything more than it was: the rantings of a demented mind.
    • Utter nonsense.

      See for example Newton Timeline [ufl.edu]. Note the item for 1697, when Newton was 55. He recieved a problem from Bernoulli that he solved and published the solution to anonymously. Bernoulli was easily able to identify Newton as the author "as the lion is known by its paw"--that is, by the style and depth of insight in the solution.

      --Tom

  • Newton died at around 85. [google.com] So he must have started studying Revelations at about 30, though I don't suppose he spent all the time of those years studying Revelations.
  • They said when the 64 disks from the towers of hanoi in some temple were moved from one tower to another. (moving each disk took at very least a minute), than the work will end..

    So, let's see. Optimal solution time = 2^N - 1. Giving one minute per move gives us.

    (2^64 - 1) Minutes ~= 3.5 x 10^13 years.

    Which is a lot closer I believe than the people who say it will happen in 50 years. We all want the world to end, but it just doesn't seem to want to acknowledge our desires. (Or at least a lot people want it to end considering how often the end of the world is tommorow.:)

  • Newton as a false prophet? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dacarr ( 562277 ) on Monday February 24, 2003 @08:59PM (#5375259) Homepage Journal
    It is declared numerous times throughout the new testament that nobody knows when the world ends. A little ironic then that he was a devout believer.
  • No kidding this is the conclusion they just came to on Fox News.

    John ALan Paulos was right.

  • Narrow Minded? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TheWanderingHermit ( 513872 ) on Monday February 24, 2003 @09:21PM (#5375400)
    Those narrow-minded souls who still believe that devout religious faith is incompatible with fervent scientific inquiry

    Good point. Whenever religion pops up here, anyone supporting it (or any "non-geek" world view) is often flamed and rapidly roasted.

    I have friends who are devout athiests as well as friends who are strict fundamentalist Christians -- as well as friends who are Wiccan, Quaker, Buddist, and memembers of other religions, including "new-agers." I've seen people with faith do remarkable things (Yes -- I've seen faith healing). I've learned that, even though I've studied many religions, I don't know squat about religion.

    I've seen many people here continually point out that any form of religious or spiritual belief is unproven, and therefore, untrustworthy and false.

    I have yet, however, to see anyone who has said such a thing show that s/he knows the first thing about the religion they are claiming is false -- other than what outsiders say of various religions.

    Newton was very interested in religious and spiritual matters -- and even studied astrology. (There is a story that Halley asked him, "Why do you believe in astrology?" To which Newton replied, "Because I have studied it. You have not." -- I've seen writings that document this as true and others that claim it is false, but it's an interesting point.)

    I'll probably get flamed for this (by people that think they know everything but have never studied any of the world's religions), since I'm sticking up for Newton and others believing in religious beliefs that can't be proven scientifically, but I think it's a point worth making.

    In my experience, I withhold judgement. By not judging my friends of many different religious, I've been able to have some wonderful opportunities to learn and see things I would have never expected to see.
    • For ages we prayed anw we were the victims of famine and disease.

      For a few hundred years we made science and improved the lifes of millions.

      Faith healing? Yeah, sure, whatever makes you rock, I have seen more people saved by verifiable applied science than vy unverified alleged "faith" healing.

      Keep praying, but surely you take your vaccinations, go to your doctor, and benefit from the research to make your life last 3 or 4 times as much as lifes used to last around 200 or 300 years in conditions far better.

      Keep praying.

      • Re:Yeah, sure. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by TheWanderingHermit ( 513872 ) on Tuesday February 25, 2003 @11:37AM (#5378880)
        Funny, but this post almost proves my point -- that any view involving religion is flamed. I'm not saying this post is a flame, but it is a great example of someone who believes strongly in science and is so sure s/he is right that s/he won't even pay attention to what is being said about other points of view.

        Basically, it's an example of someone so sure science is the ONLY way, they refuse to even consider other options. It shows that science can be as blind a religion as extreme fundamentalism.

        It's the "I'm right and I am so sure I'm right, I won't even consider anything else and I know it's got to be wrong if it's not my point of view," thing -- the same for a believer in science as for a believer in the Bible. Both are equally ignorant of the other points of view and both are equally stubborn in refusing to even look into other ways.

        As I said, I keep an open mind. It is not uncommon for me to be invited to a range of religious ceremonies. I think it's clear I've been open minded and seen things others here haven't.

        For ages we prayed anw we were the victims of famine and disease.

        You're right. Now we don't have to worry about hunger -- nobody starves any more. Science has solved that problem. And certainly, disease is no longer a problem. (I'm glad you didn't hear the show on AIDS I heard yesterday -- about how over 30% of the population in some areas of Africa is HIV positive -- it might lead you to doubt that we are no longer victims of disease.)

        I have been to places like St. Anne's Cathedral in Quebec, or Chimayo, in New Mexico (or Lourdes in France). I've seen people I've known, with "incurable" conditions be healed by their faith.

        I never said science was wrong. I never said don't believe in science. All I pointed out was that I've seen a WIDE variety, from no faith at all, to faith in science, to faith in spiritual beliefs. I've seen many different things work for many people.

        While I don't want to talk about my beliefs here, I do want to point out it is unscientific to belittle things one has not investigated or studied. It is accepting something as untrue without investigating it.

        Those who base their faith on religious scripture and belittle science usually have no understanding at all of science. And those who base their faith on science and belittle faith usually have no understanding, at all, of faith. As is shown by your post.

        If science works for you, great, but that doesn't mean you know enough about faith based points of view to drag them down or belittle them.

        (Side note: From your comments like "Keep praying," and "go to your doctor," it seems clear you put me in the "faith healing" camp. Notice, if you read my post, I never once put myself in any group. As I said, I withhold judgement. Again, this is an example of someone so strong in their beliefs they don't want to read anything that could possibly disagree with them carefully.)
  • Those who humbly submit themsleves to any proven evidence (scientists will have no problems to accept religious explanations that are repeatable and verifiable) or those that in spite of repeatable, evident evidence of phenomena decide to ignore it to follow an often poorly understood dogma?

    Newton may have been fundmanetlay correct about mathematics and physics, but he is wrong in many other things, this being one of them.

  • I wonder what Isaac Newton would have done if someone would have introduced him to slashdot while he was at college? Would he debated 'what a planet was' ? Or denied that someone was a woman because they used a certain kind of smiley? Maybe. He might have used it as a diversion just to get him through some tough times. Geniuses are often a little crazy. Look at Abraham Lincoln's wife, for instance.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.

Close