PDA

View Full Version : Isaac Newton



cushioncrawler
08-28-2011, 01:12 AM
Michael Fowler, Physics Dept., U.Va.

Newton’s Life
In 1642, the year Galileo died, Isaac Newton was born in Woolsthorpe, Lincolnshire, England on Christmas Day. His father had died three months earlier, and baby Isaac, very premature, was also not expected to survive. It was said he could be fitted into a quart pot. When Isaac was three, his mother married a wealthy elderly clergyman from the next village, and went to live there, leaving Isaac behind with his grandmother. The clergyman died, and Isaac’s mother came back, after eight years, bringing with her three small children. Two years later, Newton went away to the Grammar School in Grantham, where he lodged with the local apothecary, and was fascinated by the chemicals. The plan was that at age seventeen he would come home and look after the farm. He turned out to be a total failure as a farmer.

His mother’s brother, a clergyman who had been an undergraduate at Cambridge, persuaded his mother that it would be better for Isaac to go to university, so in 1661 he went up to Trinity College, Cambridge. Isaac paid his way through college for the first three years by waiting tables and cleaning rooms for the fellows (faculty) and the wealthier students. In 1664, he was elected a scholar, guaranteeing four years of financial support. Unfortunately, at that time the plague was spreading across Europe, and reached Cambridge in the summer of 1665. The university closed, and Newton returned home, where he spent two years concentrating on problems in mathematics and physics. He wrote later that during this time he first understood the theory of gravitation, which we shall discuss below, and the theory of optics (he was the first to realize that white light is made up of the colors of the rainbow), and much mathematics, both integral and differential calculus and infinite series. However, he was always reluctant to publish anything, at least until it appeared someone else might get credit for what he had found earlier.

On returning to Cambridge in 1667, he began to work on alchemy, but then in 1668 Nicolas Mercator published a book containing some methods for dealing with infinite series. Newton immediately wrote a treatise, De Analysi, expounding his own wider ranging results. His friend and mentor Isaac Barrow communicated these discoveries to a London mathematician, but only after some weeks would Newton allow his name to be given. This brought his work to the attention of the mathematics community for the first time. Shortly afterwards, Barrow resigned his Lucasian Professorship (which had been established only in 1663, with Barrow the first incumbent) at Cambridge so that Newton could have the Chair.

Newton’s first major public scientific achievement was the invention, design and construction of a reflecting telescope. He ground the mirror, built the tube, and even made his own tools for the job. This was a real advance in telescope technology, and ensured his election to membership in the Royal Society. The mirror gave a sharper image than was possible with a large lens because a lens focusses different colors at slightly different distances, an effect called chromatic aberration. This problem is minimized nowadays by using compound lenses, two lenses of different kinds of glass stuck together, that err in opposite directions, and thus tend to cancel each other’s shortcomings, but mirrors are still used in large telescopes.

Later in the 1670’s, Newton became very interested in theology. He studied Hebrew scholarship and ancient and modern theologians at great length, and became convinced that Christianity had departed from the original teachings of Christ.
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>He felt unable to accept the current beliefs of the Church of England, </span> which was unfortunate because he was required as a Fellow of Trinity College to take holy orders. Happily, the Church of England was more flexible than Galileo had found the Catholic Church in these matters, and King Charles II issued a royal decree excusing Newton from the necessity of taking holy orders! Actually, to prevent this being a wide precedent, the decree specified that, in perpetuity, the Lucasian professor need not take holy orders. (The current Lucasian professor is Stephen Hawking.)

In 1684, three members of the Royal Society, Sir Christopher Wren, Robert Hooke and Edmond Halley, argued as to whether the elliptical orbits of the planets could result from a gravitational force towards the sun proportional to the inverse square of the distance. Halley writes:

Mr. Hook said he had had it, but that he would conceal it for some time so that others, triing and failing might know how to value it, when he should make it publick.

Halley went up to Cambridge, and put the problem to Newton, who said he had solved it four years earlier, but couldn’t find the proof among his papers. Three months later, he sent an improved version of the proof to Halley, and devoted himself full time to developing these ideas, culminating in the publication of the Principia in 1686. This was the book that really did change man’s view of the universe, as we shall shortly discuss, and its importance was fully appreciated very quickly. Newton became a public figure. He left Cambridge for London, where he was appointed Master of the Mint, a role he pursued energetically, as always, including prosecuting counterfeiters. He was knighted by Queen Anne. He argued with Hooke about who deserved credit for discovering the connection between elliptical orbits and the inverse square law until Hooke died in 1703, and he argued with a German mathematician and philosopher, Leibniz, about which of them invented calculus. Newton died in 1727, and was buried with much pomp and circumstance in Westminster Abbey—
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>despite his well-known reservations about the Anglican faith.</span>

An excellent, readable book is The Life of Isaac Newton, by Richard Westfall, Cambridge 1993, which I used in writing the above summary of Newton’s life.

A fascinating collection of articles, profusely illustrated, on Newton’s life, work and impact on the general culture is Let Newton Be!, edited by John Fauvel and others, Oxford 1988, which I also consulted........

cushioncrawler
08-28-2011, 01:25 AM
Let us now turn to the central topic of the Principia, the universality of the gravitational force. The legend is that Newton saw an apple fall in his garden in Lincolnshire, thought of it in terms of an attractive gravitational force towards the earth, and realized the same force might extend as far as the moon. He was familiar with Galileo’s work on projectiles, and suggested that the moon’s motion in orbit could be understood as a natural extension of that theory. To see what is meant by this, consider a gun shooting a projectile horizontally from a very high mountain, and imagine using more and more powder in successive shots to drive the projectile faster and faster.

The parabolic paths would become flatter and flatter, and, if we imagine that the mountain is so high that air resistance can be ignored, and the gun is sufficiently powerful, eventually the point of landing is so far away that we must consider the curvature of the earth in finding where it lands.

In fact, the real situation is more dramatic—the earth’s curvature may mean the projectile never lands at all. This was envisioned by Newton in the Principia. The following diagram is from his later popularization, A Treatise of the System of the World, written in the 1680’s:

The mountaintop at V is supposed to be above the earth’s atmosphere, and for a suitable initial speed, the projectile orbits the earth in a circular path. In fact, the earth’s curvature is such that the surface falls away below a truly flat horizontal line by about five meters in 8,000 meters (five miles). Recall that five meters is just the vertical distance an initially horizontally moving projectile will fall in the first second of motion. But this implies that if the (horizontal) muzzle velocity were 8,000 meters per second, the downward fall of the cannonball would be just matched by the earth’s surface falling away, and it would never hit the ground! This is just the motion, familiar to us now, of a satellite in a low orbit, which travels at about 8,000 meters (five miles) a second, or 18,000 miles per hour. (Actually, Newton drew this mountain impossibly high, no doubt for clarity of illustration. A satellite launched horizontally from the top would be far above the usual shuttle orbit, and go considerably more slowly than 18,000 miles per hour.)

For an animated version of Newton’s cannon on a mountain, click here!

The Moon is Falling
Newton realized that the moon’s circular path around the earth could be caused in this way by the same gravitational force that would hold such a cannonball in low orbit, in other words, the same force that causes bodies to fall.

To think about this idea, let us consider the moon’s motion, beginning at some particular instant, as deviating downwards—falling—from some initial “horizontal” line, just as for the cannonball shot horizontally from a high mountain. The first obvious question is: does the moon fall five meters below the horizontal line, that is, towards the earth, in the first second? This was not difficult for Newton to check, because the path of the moon was precisely known by this time. The moon’s orbit is approximately a circle of radius about 384,000 kilometers (240,000 miles), which it goes around in a month (to be precise, in 27.3 days), so the distance covered in one second is, conveniently, very close to one kilometer. It is then a matter of geometry to figure out how far the curved path falls below a “horizontal” line in one second of flight, and the answer turns out to be not five meters, but only a little over one millimeter! (Actually around 1.37 millimeters.)

It’s completely impossible to draw a diagram showing how far it falls in one second, but the geometry is the same if we look how far it falls in one day, so here it is:

The Moon in orbiting the Earth goes from A to D in one day. Without the Earth’s pull, it would have gone in a straight line to B. It has therefore fallen below the straight line in one day by the distance between D and B.

Since we know the radius of the orbit, and we know how far the Moon travels in one day, we can find the distance DB using Pythagoras’ theorem for the triangle CAB, where C is the center of the Earth. A B C D

For one second, AB would be only one kilometer, so since AC is 384,000 km., the triangle ABC is really thin, but we can still use Pythagoras’ theorem!

Thus the “natural acceleration” of the moon towards the earth, measured by how far it falls below straight line motion in one second, is less than that of an <span style='font-size: 20pt'>apple</span> here on earth by the ratio of five meters to 1.37 millimeters, which works out to be about 3,600.

What can be the significance of this much smaller rate of fall? Newton’s answer was that the natural acceleration of the moon was much smaller than that of the cannonball because they were both caused by a force—a gravitational attraction towards the earth, and that the gravitational force became weaker on going away from the earth.

In fact, the figures we have given about the moon’s orbit enable us to compute how fast the gravitational attraction dies away with distance. The distance from the center of the earth to the earth’s surface is about 6,350 kilometers (4,000 miles), so the moon is about 60 times further from the center of the earth than we and the cannonball are.

From our discussion of how fast the moon falls below a straight line in one second in its orbit, we found that the gravitational acceleration for the moon is down by a factor of 3,600 from the cannonball’s (or the <span style='font-size: 20pt'>apple’s</span>).

Putting these two facts together, and noting that 3,600 = 60 x 60, led Newton to his famous inverse square law: the force of gravitational attraction between two bodies decreases with increasing distance between them as the inverse of the square of that distance, so if the distance is doubled, the force is down by a factor of four.

cushioncrawler
08-28-2011, 01:34 AM
Deu 32:10 He found him in a desert land, and in the waste howling wilderness; he led him about, he instructed him, he kept him as the apple of his eye.

Psa 17:8 Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of thy wings,

Pro 7:2 Keep my commandments, and live; and my law as the apple of thine eye.

Sgs 2:3 As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so [is] my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit [was] sweet to my taste.

Sgs 8:5 Who [is] this that cometh up from the wilderness, leaning upon her beloved? I raised thee up under the apple tree: there thy mother brought thee forth: there she brought thee forth [that] bare thee.

Lam 2:18 Their heart cried unto the Lord, O wall of the daughter of Zion, let tears run down like a river day and night: give thyself no rest; let not the apple of thine eye cease.

Joe 1:12 The vine is dried up, and the fig tree languisheth; the pomegranate tree, the palm tree also, and the apple tree, [even] all the trees of the field, are withered: because joy is withered away from the sons of men.

Zec 2:8 For thus saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye.

cushioncrawler
08-28-2011, 01:36 AM
Here then we kan see that Isaac got the idea of Newton's Commandment of Gravity from the apples in The Holey Bible.
mac.

cushioncrawler
08-28-2011, 01:39 AM
Cambridge changes a man.
mac.

Pro 25:11 A word fitly spoken [is like] apples of gold in pictures of silver.

Sgs 2:5 Stay me with flagons, comfort me with apples: for I [am] sick of love.

Sgs 7:8 I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy nose like apples;

cushioncrawler
08-28-2011, 01:41 AM
Proof enuff allready.
mac.

1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

Tts 2:7 In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine [shewing] uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,

cushioncrawler
08-28-2011, 01:53 AM
The moon stayed, and stood still.
This iz tricky. Clearly the moon had legs, otherwize the moon would hav sat still.
Hmmmmmm -- how iz a scientist to puzzle this out -- Hmmmm, it must be that a moon kan hav legs to stand, but duznt hav a behind with which to sit. Newt missed a good chance for sainthood here. He kood hav formulated Newtons's 2nd Law.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>There are no arseholes in heaven, gravity holds all arseholes here on earth, where they point to the ground, and seeth not the sun.</span>

Jos 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Hab 3:11 The sun [and] moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, [and] at the shining of thy glittering spear.

LWW
08-28-2011, 02:57 AM
What, if anything, is your point?

cushioncrawler
08-28-2011, 03:20 AM
I am exploring how the The Hoey Bible helped science -- to the extent that instead of having a man on the moon in 969AD we had to wait untill 1969AD.
In fakt if u look at the dark Bible ages, u probly hav barely 400yrs of much scientifik aktivity, in which case we might hav had a man on the moon in say 600AD instead of 1969AD.
mac.

Qtec
08-28-2011, 04:10 AM
link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1MgCV6uGuc&feature=related)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel,

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

Plato, they say, could stick it away--
Half a crate of whiskey every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram,

And Ren Descartes was a drunken fart.
'I drink, therefore I am.'

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker,
But a bugger when he's pissed. </div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Q

Soflasnapper
08-28-2011, 08:33 AM
Newton devised the calculus as a method of calculating the net sums of attractions from a body of size as if they came from all of the mass at its center of gravity.

Unfortunately, he laid out this theory with an intuitive idea of something called infinitesimals. This did not lend itself to a rigorous mathematical presentation, and in fact, led to an error in calculation so grave that the moon's motions were badly modeled, and Newton almost gave up the theory itself when it gave such clearly wrong results with regard to the moon's motions.

He found the error and corrected it, thereby saving the theory of universal gravitation in his own mind, and allowing his work to go forward to publication. However, his founding principles of calculus were so hard to formalize rigorously that a Rube Goldberg-style dance around statements about 'limits' became the accepted framework.

Eventually, some hundreds of years later in the early '60s, the mathematician Robinson at USC developed a rigorous version of infinitesimal theory called 'non-standard analysis.' Explained here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_analysis)

This showed Newton's mathematical intuition was sound. Oddly, this redemption of Newton's theory of calculus came about 50 years after General Relativity theory showed his theory of universal gravity to be a first order approximation of a considerably deeper and more complicated phenomena, that was revealed by an analysis of Ricci tensor calculus on pseudo-Riemannian manifolds in n-space.

Thus we find that the questionable part of Newton-- his calculus foundation-- was found correct in the end, and his most famous contribution to science, which found near-universal acceptance in the meantime, was found only correct to an approximation (i.e., it was ultimately wrong, or at least, was cashiered in favor of a more robust mathematical model).

The jury may still be out on Newton's real life's work, which is determining the age of the Earth from Biblical sources at ~6,000 years old, to which he devoted most of his later life, while continuing to refuse to bathe.

LWW
08-28-2011, 10:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thus we find that the questionable part of Newton-- his calculus foundation-- was found correct in the end, and his most famous contribution to science, which found near-universal acceptance in the meantime, was found only correct to an approximation (i.e., it was ultimately wrong, or at least, was cashiered in favor of a more robust mathematical model).</div></div>

Not bad work for a fellow using no more advanced tools than a quill pen and some scratch paper.

You also forgot to include that in his end years Isaac was quite mad.

Also, claiming his "real life's work" to be dating the age of the Earth is an overstatement, although he did write about this and his conclusions.

What could most accurately be described as his life's work, his conventional scientific work was certainly secondary, is what today would be best described as occult studies.

His goal was to rediscover what he believed to be the knowledge of the ancients.

To the end he worked on finding what he called the "PHILOSOPHER'S STONE" which would allow one to convert base metals such as lead into gold and on finding the "ELIXER OF LIFE" that would allow gold and silver to grow.

Newton's work on ages deduced from Biblical study was published over 20 years before his demise. As a blessing, Isaac ciphered that the end of the world would not come before at least 2060 Anno Domini.

He also believed that his intellectual abilities were a gift from God, given to only a select chosen few, that allowed him to interpret Biblical scripture.

Newton was also almost certainly a very early member of modern Freemasonry, and the Ancient and Mystical Order of Rosicrucians.

Put simply ... it was religious faith that drove Newton's scientific pursuits, and the idea that religion suppressed his work is preposterous.

Sadly, much of Newton's work on alchemy was destroyed by fire.

Soflasnapper
08-28-2011, 04:40 PM
Quite so, all of that is correct, according to the Wackopedia. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

I had thought he'd spent ALL his remaining life working on the age of the Earth, not publishing those results 20 years before his death, so my error there.

And certainly, the occult arts, if you will, especially alchemy, were his passion and pursuit. I expect he cast horoscopes as well, since he studied astrology intensely. When challenged about his belief in astrology, he replied, 'have you studied it? I HAVE!'

Along with the quill and ink and paper tools, don't leave unmentioned his prodigious intellect, sometimes estimated in the mid-200s for IQ.

As for the religious issue, don't forget that the 'black arts,' divination, fortune telling, etc., are considered forbidden by God to men, and that Freemasonry, while based partially on monotheism, was opposed to the organized church power. He could have had both a religious motive to his seeking the secrets of the Great Architect, and STILL had problems with the Church (R), as an institutional matter.

LWW
08-28-2011, 05:54 PM
And?

cushioncrawler
08-28-2011, 07:46 PM
Which all reminds me that general relativity and mrs einstein are wrong.

That math iz a language, nothing more nor less.

That no math theory iz ever a scientifik theory, it iz just math, usefull praps, interesting praps, but not science.

That nothing kan be proven, all arguements are ultimately circular.

That unfortunately we think and communicate in say english, and all of english iz in a dictionary, ie it iz finite, and thusly cannot explain much at all -- and, az a dictionary iz circular in nature, this adds another circular layer to any arguement, thusly we allways hav 2 circular blind alleys.
mac.

Soflasnapper
08-28-2011, 07:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And? </div></div>

Put simply ... it was religious faith that drove Newton's scientific pursuits, and the idea that religion suppressed his work is preposterous.

My point was that however religiously motivated he was, what he was doing was officially forbidden inquiry, and so despite being religiously motivated, he may have been worried about religious prosecution anyway.

Soflasnapper
08-28-2011, 08:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Which all reminds me that general relativity and mrs einstein are wrong.

That math iz a language, nothing more nor less.

That no math theory iz ever a scientifik theory, it iz just math, usefull praps, interesting praps, but not science.

That nothing kan be proven, all arguements are ultimately circular.

That unfortunately we think and communicate in say english, and all of english iz in a dictionary, ie it iz finite, and thusly cannot explain much at all -- and, az a dictionary iz circular in nature, this adds another circular layer to any arguement, thusly we allways hav 2 circular blind alleys.
mac. </div></div>

Nice catch, mac! Not many have heard of her (alleged?) role.

Yes math is a language, but one that eerily works to describe physical phenomenon, by chance or act of God.

Why would complex numbers, meaning those expressed in real numbers plus so-called imaginary ones (meaning the square roots of negative numbers, which may or may not exist, any more than other numbers 'really exist'??), so well suit describing the behaviors of certain electric circuits?

These things have caused brawls among mathematicians forever (the orthodoxy in the universities rejecting imaginary numbers, before that, negative numbers, Kantor's transfinite numbers, Galois' group theory, etc.), cost thinkers their careers, and so it goes.

Undoubtedly, Einstein needed the 19th century maths of Riemann and Ricci to do what he did, at least as to the formalism to state his theory in mathematical writing.

I've often heard it said that physicists simply do not know the math they need to do the work they do at the cutting edge.

But the wonder of it all is that likely, advances in mathematics now will show up in the physics down the road some years, and actually WORK! Meaning, provide a quantitative prediction that is seen once the experiment is done.

Quantum chromodynamics yields results accurate out to some 32 decimal places, from what I've heard. Why is that remotely possible?

cushioncrawler
08-29-2011, 12:22 AM
Yes, math can deskribe things and giv answers and help test theorys etc. But take Newton, he apparantly said that there woz an attraction force, and he called it gravity, and did the math, invented math even.

But none of any of that goze even close to theorizing what and how gravity duz its thing. Iz it really only one thing. Iz it really attraction, might it be something pushing (or, az mrs einstein sez, nothing pushing).

Take mrs einstein. How kan space be curved (i beleev it sort of iz). But, what then iz space.
And, there iz no such thing az universal time. Lynds explains that. So where duz this leev space-time.

Take the speed of light. It haz never been measured in one direktion -- allways out and back -- Hmmmmmmm.

Do we really need einstein's general theory to show that black holes are possible. No.

Does time dilation at astronomikal levels and at atomik levels prove general relativity. No.

There are an infinite number of ways of explaining anything, even to 32 places.

Scientists uze math to help speculate about time being a dimension (komplete krap). Math iz uzed to show that time kan go in reverse (ie just add a minus sign, who kan argue with that logik). And math can be uzed to show that time can go in imaginary sideways direktions. But Lynds explains that universal time duznt exist, and that time karnt go backwards, never mind in some imaginary direktion.

I beleev that there iz now a theory that there iz only one sub-atomik partikal, but that it kan manifest in 100's of different ways.

In the end, or along the way, science kan only ever replace a question with a smarter and more diffikult question (not talking about practical sciences).
mac.

cushioncrawler
08-29-2011, 01:31 AM
Me, myself, i dont beleev any of that stuff. I reckon that there iz no such thing az a particle. Only force exists. Forces manifest az particles. Forces manifest az mass. Forces yield time.

Forces exist or arize in (the) aether (or in lots of aethers). The vizible etc universe iz one of many universes, existing in the same place and time, but seperated by three dimensions.

Dimension one iz size. U kan hav a mini-universe which haz very small dimensions (where forever takes allmost no time), and a maxi-universe which haz very large dimensions (where things take forever).

Dimension two iz speed. U kan hav multiple universes that dont react koz of their high relativ speeds.

Dimension three i forget.
mac.

Of course, even if korrekt, this raizes even more diffikult questions.

LWW
08-29-2011, 03:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And? </div></div>

Put simply ... it was religious faith that drove Newton's scientific pursuits, and the idea that religion suppressed his work is preposterous.

My point was that however religiously motivated he was, what he was doing was officially forbidden inquiry, and so despite being religiously motivated, he may have been worried about religious prosecution anyway. </div></div>

His alchemy research was not forbidden on religious grounds.

The crown saw alchemy as counterfeiting as production of gold and silver from lead would nearly instantly break the treasury.

Soflasnapper
08-29-2011, 08:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Newton had also researched the history of Christianity and believed it to have rested on a mistake or many. He, like many before and after him, read himself into heresy. He denied both the trinity and the divinity of Jesus. He thought the fault mainly lay with the early church fathers in 4th century who were villains and had distorted true Christianity. This, however, was all part of his dark secret and would have been very dangerous to divulge at that time.

Newton hated the Catholic Church with a vengeance and among his favourite texts were the prophetic books of Daniel and Revelation. He identified the scarlet woman as the Catholic Church - a harlot who had corrupted Christianity with non-biblical teaching. </div></div>

Finally, at the end of his life, he refused Final Unction. Commentary here based on a BBC profile of Newton, 'The Dark Heretic.' (http://www.kton.demon.co.uk/newton.htm)

LWW
08-29-2011, 08:23 AM
And?

Soflasnapper
08-29-2011, 12:03 PM
Denying the trinity, and the divinity of Christ Jesus, is an heretical position as to standard Christianity. It's similar to the Islamic faith's position on Christ Jesus, which we know isn't a Christian position.

So, clearly, then, although Newton was WAY religious, he was in direct conflict with The Church (tm) of his day, a claim that was made here which you denied could be true.

LWW
08-30-2011, 03:28 AM
Perhaps you can quote where it was claimed and where I denied it ... or at least where you believe these things happened?