### Guest Blog

Commentary invited by editors of Scientific American

# How the Modern Physics was Invented in the 17th Century, Part 3: Why Galileo Didn’t Discover Universal Gravitation?

Note: this is the third of three parts of the essay. The first two parts were published yesterday and the day before (see links at the bottom of the page).

The very first discovery in fundamental physics, made by Galileo, – the law of free fall – was also the first discovery in physics of gravity. It was the starting point for Newton’s law of universal gravitation a few decades later. Was it possible for Galileo himself to discover the law of universal gravitation at his level of mathematization and by his style of doing science?

Yes it was, although Galileo’s predisposition was quite unfavorable, since he rejected statements on attraction as an explanation of the Solar system. But nevertheless Galileo could come to the law of universal attraction by a way starting with his discovery that free falling projectile is moving on parabolic trajectory. He understood that parabolic trajectory was but an approximate result for “flat Earth”, or for small initial velocity. He didn’t know the form of trajectory in general case but he could grasp that very high initial horizontal velocity would make the projectile to go far away from the Earth.

Galileo is often reproached for his keeping to “backward” ideally circular planetary orbit despite the observational reality summarized in Kepler’s law of elliptical orbits. Indeed Galileo ignored rather than reject Kepler’s laws of planetary motion. Circular planetary orbit was the simplest model to probe into physics of planetary motion, and Galileo could do this. Even without knowing the general form of trajectory of free falling object, he could ask what initial horizontal velocity V would make a projectile to move at the same constant distance from the surface of the spherical Earth.

And he could answer this question by means of math no more sophisticated than the theorem of Pythagoras:

V = (gR)½,

where g is the acceleration of free fall and R is the radius of the Earth. This is the so called first cosmic velocity (~ 8 km/s) reached for the first time in October 1957 by Sputnik 1.

The motion at a constant distance from of the Earth resembles the Moon’s motion too much for Galileo to miss this resemblance. But Galileo would find that the relation V = (gR)½ holds for the Moon only if acceleration of free fall on the Moon’s distance from the Earth gM is about 3600 times less than gE he had measured on the Earth, since the distance to Moon RM is about 60 times larger than RE, and Moon’s orbital velocity is about 1 km/s. It would hint at relation

g(R)~ R-2,

which is, in fact, very close to the law of universal gravitation, because here evidently the Earth determines the acceleration of free fall on specific distance from the (center of the) Earth. So the Earth is the source of such a universal acceleration in the space around it.

Combining this relation with the previous, Galileo would get a relation for the astronomically observable parameters

V ~ R- ½ .

Having verified this relation for the planets in the Solar system and for the satellites of Jupiter (discovered by himself in 1610), Galileo could realize that he got the 3rd Kepler’s law for circular planetary motion and could discern both a real sense in the unpleasing Kepler’s wording on heavenly planetary attraction and the connection of the 3rd Kepler’s law with the earthly phenomenon of free fall.

Then, in usual Galileo’s way of thought experimentation, he could be playing with placing a thought Moon further and further from Earth and closer to Mars. When the Moon is on equal distances from the both planets, he could ask whose satellite this thought Moon would be. This way he would come to the idea of combine action of the two planets making the thought Moon to move with combine accelerations, as the result of two attractions. And this would be virtually the law of universal gravitation, even if yet for circular movement.

Thus Galileo would come to the law of universal gravitation. Why didn’t he do it?

A probable reason was that he was too serious about his biblical worldview – regardless of how far he was from official theology. Galileo was unable to accept a friendly suggestion from the Pope (who was his admirer) to write about his science freely but without claiming that his theory was real truth rather than a hypothesis, even if the best one compare to others. If Galileo had been an atheist he could condescend to scientific backwardness of the religious authority, and in his writing to address to his colleagues the scientists with obviating repercussions by proper – hypothetical – wording.

But being an honest biblical believer he had to defend his truth-seeking. So he invented a literary form to obviate administrative restrictions in his Dialogues and had to spend too much time and effort for his kind of popular-science writing. Nevertheless he failed to circumvent the scientific ignorance of society and the Church and, as a result of persecution, his intellectual and social freedom was harshly restricted for the rest of his life.

Of course in the history of science Galileo’s “unnecessary” popular-science writings had played a very important role in propagating the new way of doing science all over Europe. But being too busy for too long with such writings and with opposition to ideological officialdom Galileo left the honor for developing his research into the law of universal gravity to Newton who started his quest in a lucky windy day by a legendary apple tree. Again there is no bad without some good – the story of how Newton came to his law can support the opportunity Galileo had had.

It is known that Newton came to the idea of inverse-square gravity in his twenties (in the 1660s) employing circular motion, parabolic approxi­mation and Galileo’s kinematics, and sometimes Newton is reproached for being “excessive in offering credit to Galileo” (rather than to Decartes).[21] Besides historical reconstructions based on Newton’s later writings there is only one sort of eyewitness evidence about his real way to his idea. It is the apple story written by a friend of Newton William Stukeley. 25 years after Newton’s death. Stukeley related their conversation on 15 April 1726:

“After dinner, the weather being warm, we went into the garden, & drank thea under the shade of some appletrees, only he, & myself. Amidst other discourse, he told me, he was just in the same situation, as when formerly, the notion of gravitation came into his mind. “Why should that apple always descend perpendicularly to the ground,” thought he to him self: occasion’d by the fall of an apple, as he sat in a contemplative mood: “Why should it not go sideways, or upwards? But constantly to the earths centre? assuredly, the reason is, that the earth draws it. There must be a drawing power in matter. & the sum of the drawing power in the matter of the earth must be in the earths center, not in any side of the earth. Therefore dos this apple fall perpendicularly, or toward the center. If matter thus draws matter; it must be in proportion of its quantity. Therefore the apple draws the earth, as well as the earth draws the apple.”

That there is a power like that we here call gravity which extends its self thro’ the universe & thus by degrees, he began to apply this property of gravitation to the motion of the earth, & of the heavenly bodys: to consider thir distances, their magnitudes, thir periodical revolutions: to find out, that this property, conjointly with a progressive motion impressed on them in the beginning, perfectly solv’d thir circular courses; kept the planets from falling upon one another, or dropping all together into one center. & thus he unfolded the Universe. This was the birth of those amazing discoverys, whereby he built philosophy on a solid foundation, to the astonishment of all Europe.” [22]

From my extensive experience in oral history about events that happened a few decades earlier (including written recollections), I’ve learn that this kind of source is both priceless and unreliable. To decide which element of the evidence is what, one have to understand the personality of the witness and the whole situation as deeply as possible.

From this Stukeley’s description, with its direct speech and Newton’s “thought to himself”, one can infer that the author was concerned to tell a good story rather than to be as accurate as possible. Stukeley was neither a physicist nor a historian of science, he was an archaeologist who described himself as a “druid”. When he wrote, many years later, that Newton “was just in the same situation” he apparently forgot that April is a bit too early for falling apples.

Hopefully I am not the only historian of physics for whom Stukeley’s explanation doesn’t make real sense, I am unable to imagine the train of Newton’s thought at the time when the great discoverer hadn’t yet made his amazing discovery. I rather see the explanation which satisfied the archaeologist-druid at the time when “all Europe” knew what was universal gravity.

The only fact that seems to be undeniable is that falling apple somehow triggered the discovery, and a historian of physics may feel free to guess what did happened in that lucky day when Newton saw a falling apple. My guess is that the lucky day was windy and the wind was gusty. So Newton saw the apple falling in a parabolic way. He could easily grasp that a stronger gust of wind would make the parabola wider, and he could ask himself what if the gust would be strong enough to keep falling apple to stay at the constant distance from the spherical Earth’s surface, that is on a circular orbit. Then he could follow the above described way to the inverse-square universal gravity. Here Newton needed only Galileo’s kinematics, rather than sophisticated mathematics of Decartes.

Newton, just like Galileo, did not like the old-fashioned astrological, non-mathematical idea of planetary “attraction” , but had to accept it as re-invented mathemitized fundamentals under the weight of its successful corollaries supported by empirical evidence, just like Galileo had to re-invent and corroborate the notion of the movement in the vacuum.

Newton’s real way to universal gravity was manifested in his thought experiment in the very beginning of his manuscript ‘A Treatise of the System of the World’ which preceded to his ‘Principia’, but was published posthumously:

“That by means of centripetal forces, the Planets may be retained in certain orbits, we may easily understand, if we consider the motions of projectiles. For a stone projected is by the pressure of its own weight forced out of the rectilinear path, which by the projection alone it should have pursued, and made to describe a curve line in the air; and through that crooked way is at last brought down to the ground. And the greater the velocity is with which it is projected, the farther it goes before it falls to the Earth. We may therefore suppose the velocity to be so increased, that it would describe an arc of 1, 2, 5, 10, 100, 1,000 miles before it arrived at Earth, till at last, exceeding the limits of the Earth, it should pass quite by without touching it.” [23]

Here “stone projected” could be a pseudonym of his falling apple.

Here we can finish “what-if” and “how-specifically” history of the law of universal gravity and return to a general question why this fundamental discovery as well as the invention of the fundamental physics happened only in European civilization, and whether it was facilitated by the Biblical background of its culture and by biblical theism of the originators of fundamental physics.

The last hypothesis might outrage a typical descendant of Biblical civilization of today, when church is securely separated from state, and religious faith is considered a wholly private issue separated from all mundane affairs including science. However more important are opinions of not so typical physicists who firsthand experienced insights and discoveries in physics which required all the creative resources of a person.

An atheist Boltzmann expressed his admiration for Maxwell’s equations in theistic way by quoting from Geothe’s Faust: “Was it a god who wrote these signs? Which still my inner rage, which fill my heart with joy, and which, in a mysterious way, reveal the forces of nature around me”.

To the mind of Einstein, who was no a churchgoer at all, “Our moral leanings and tastes, our sense of beauty and religious instincts, are all tributary forces in helping the reasoning faculty toward its highest achievements.” [24]

According to a survey conducted by the magazine “Physics World” about two thirds of its readers think that religion and science are compatible, with half of them being non-believers and one third believing that their faith enhances their appreciation of science. [25] So, apparently, many contemporary physicists the atheists could join Boltzmann in thanking God for helping Maxwell – as well as Newton and Galileo – to make their fundamental discoveries.

And so why don’t contemporary historians of science, regardless of their (ir)religious affiliations, join Einstein in appreciation of the role of “religious instincts” (rather than official theology), at least when considering the origin of modern physics in the 17th century?

Scientific progress and intellectual freedom in the 21st century

In thinking about the beneficial cultural infrastructure for scientific progress, comparative history might be a good resource, although in the 21st century to promote the Bible might be not the only way to ensure such an infrastructure. Thanks to the amazing advancement of science, nowadays the double postulate of fundamental science is self-evident without biblical support.

Various social forces are working in a society to find out persons endowed with extraordinary curiosity and independent thinking and to provide them with necessary freedom to develop their personal abilities to make new inventions in science and technology. Here, as the history of science shows, the intellectual freedom is the most relevant among all the human rights. Instructive is the comparison of two sciences – biology and physics – against the same totalitarian background of Stalin’s Russia.

In the 1920s and the early 1930s both sciences were doing pretty well in the USSR, until the late 1930s when Stalin’s Great Purge killed millions of innocent people including some of the best physicists and biologists. [26] However in the post-war USSR the fates of the two sciences were quite different.

An agronomist T. Lysenko, enthroned in the Soviet biology directly by Stalin, effectively suppressed intellectual freedom in Soviet biology to result in its major destruction.

On the other hand, the urgent need for nuclear weapons made Soviet leaders restrain their control over the intellectual freedom of physicists, and the highest level of the freedom was allowed at the closed nuclear center where nuclear weapons were designed.

One of the weapons designers, the theoretical physicist Andrei Sakharov, in 1968, was expelled from this center after his article “Reflections on Progress, Peaceful Coexistence, and Intellectual Freedom” had been published in Samizdat and then in the New York Times. [27] It transformed the secret “father of the Soviet H-bomb” into a public figure.

His way to publicity was unique. Being a top expert in strategic balance and privy to strategic information in full, in 1967, he became gravely concerned with a problem of strategic antiballistic defense. He sent a secret detailed letter to the Politburo explaining the increased threat of nuclear war. In those days he felt himself a defender of socialism and a non-dogmatic Marxist.

Sakharov saw the fact that the founders of Marxism didn’t foreseen: due to advancement in science and technology humanity was facing the threat of global suicide within half an hour, the travel time for a nuclear missile. Sakharov actions were exercises in intellectual freedom coupled with social responsibility. He was well aware that the real intellectual freedom could thrive only on the basis of respect for the rule of law.

However, the Soviet leaders had no respect for both intellectual freedom and social responsibility of citizens, they did not heed the advice of a top non-dogmatic expert and didn’t allow Sakharov to publish a non-secret version of his analysis. It was only then he found that his intellectual freedom, so essential in his profession, was dangerously restricted. Feeling himself free enough, he went public to prevent nuclear war.

Correcting the official formula, Sakharov wrote that “evolution, not revolution, is the best locomotive of history” and confessed himself to be a “reformer and principled foe of violent revolutionary changes of the social structure, which have always led to the destruction of the economic and legal system, to mass suffering, lawlessness, and horror.”

Soviet leaders failed to make the necessary reforms, and the regime collapsed.

Chinese economic reforms show that it was not the only possible outcome. And if Chinese reformers could also create a beneficial cultural infrastructure for scientific inventiveness it would be the best practical response to the grand question of Needham, who was so sympathetic to Chinese civilization. History hints that respect for intellectual freedom and for the rule of law is the best secular approximation to the Biblical prerequisites for fundamental physics at the time of its origin.

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Chia-Hsiung Tze for helping me to appreciate the Needham question, to Lanfranco Belloni for help in checking with the original Italian of Galileo, to Robert S. Cohen, who helped me to appreciate Edgar Zilsel, to Sergey Zelensky and the Methodological seminar at the Institute for History of Science and Technology (Moscow) for stimulating discussions, and to John Stachel for helpful critical remarks.

References:

[21] J. Bruce Brackenridge. The key to Newton’s dynamics. University of California Press, 1995, p. 27, 35.

[22] William Stukeley. Memoirs of Sir Isaac Newton’s life. 1752.

[23] Isaac Newton. A treatise of the system of the world, 1728, p. 5-6.

[24] A. Einstein. Science and God. A German Dialog // Forum and Century. 1930. V.83. P.375.

[25] Robert P Crease. Religion explained // Physics World, Jul 31, 2009

[26] G. Gorelik, and V.Ya.Frenkel, Matvei Petrovich Bronstein and Soviet Theoretical Physics in the Thirties, Basel-Boston: Birkhaeuser Verlag, 1994; Springer Basel AG, 2011 (e-book)).
G. Gorelik, ‘Meine antisowjetische Taetigkeit…’ Russische Physiker unter Stalin, Transl. H. Rotter. Braunschweig/Wiesbaden: Vieweg, 1995.

[27] G. Gorelik, with A. W. Bouis, The World of Andrei Sakharov. Oxford University Press. 2005.

See all three parts of this essay:

About the Author: Gennady Gorelik is a historian of science at Boston University, author of a biography of Andrei Sakharov, and a web-exhibit at American Institute of Physics: Sakharov: Soviet Physics, Nuclear Weapons & Human Rights

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

 Previous: How the Modern Physics Was Invented in the 17th Century, Part 2: Source of Fundamental Laws MoreGuest Blog Next: How Did the Titanic Really Break Up?

1. 1. Ailblentyn 4:03 pm 04/8/2012

Interesting, but is there no proofreader?

2. 2. Bora Zivkovic 4:34 pm 04/8/2012

Yes, what error did I miss? (remember that blog posts are edited very lightly compared to articles).

3. 3. jtdwyer 6:57 pm 04/8/2012

IMO there is no physical attractive force, despite being employed by Newton’s equation describing gravitation’s effects. Likewise, Einstein employed no physical force and no material medium in accurately describing the mathematical effects of gravitation imparted to abstract dimensional coordinates of intervening spacetime.

IMO, the gravitational force is physically imparted from space, the kinetic energy imparting gravitational effects is contained within space and locally redirected towards objects of mass – that external kinetic energy is condensed as space is locally contracted by the potential energy of an aggregated material mass.

Put simply, here on Earth a bowling ball and a marble are each accelerated to the same effective velocity by the gravitational effect produced by the Earth’s mass. In comparison to the Earth’s gravitational effect, that contributed by the bowling ball and marble are in effect equally insignificant.

4. 4. doctordawg 10:56 pm 04/8/2012

This was all going so well, and then the author tries to give some small measure of credit to religion for somehow inspiring Galileo, and takes a jab at socialism, one of the political forces that threw off the yoke of superstitious dogma (I assume the author can differentiate between “socialism” and “totalitarianism”).

I am always personally offended when “no faith” and “irreligious” are used to describe those who choose reason over superstition. It implies they are missing something. A more accurate description is rational versus irrational, i.e. “…why don’t contemporary historians of science, regardless of their (ir)rational affiliations…”

Makes more sense.

5. 5. billsmith 12:00 am 04/9/2012

@jtdwyer In my opinion, ‘in my opinion’ is not by itself sufficient to constitute science. Yes, we know that Newton and Einstein are both, in a sense, wrong. But the approximations by Newtonian physics are very convenient, and the approximations by relativistic physics have proven accurate enough in every experiment where quantum effects aren’t significant.

If you would like to put forward a new theory, I suggest describing an experiment whose results would reliably support your theory while failing to support currently accepted theory. Finding astronomical truths by pure logic has fallen out of fashion these days (as alluded to in Part 1 of this series).

If you are merely trying to restate Einstein, you are not doing a very good job, IMO, as I can’t understand the phrase ‘external kinetic energy is condensed’ at all.

6. 6. billsmith 12:12 am 04/9/2012

@doctordawg

As I understood it, the author was not claiming that atheists are missing anything. Rather, he was claiming that both atheists and theists who shared a common vocabulary of metaphor and who shared a common presumption of an ordered and comprehensible universe were able to carry science further than atheists and theists who were not able to communicate their ideas in this way.

Notice the use of “Bible” rather than “religion” and the author’s suggestions that even this “scaffolding” may no longer be necessary.

7. 7. jtdwyer 4:39 am 04/9/2012

billsmith, Your opinions are also welcome.
You should notice that I’ve made no claim of being a scientist. As you did notice, I’m not formally proposing any new theory here in these little comments.
If I’m merely restating the obvious then my statements are simply redundant and unnecessary, which would be fine with me. IMO, it is incumbent on physics to provide more than a useful calculator – it must explain the fundamental nature of physical interactions; how the universe works.
If you cannot comprehend my inadequate description perhaps you’d prefer:
It is the spatial density of this external kinetic energy that physically provides for the logical geometric properties of spacetime used to quantitatively describe the effects of gravitation in general relativity. It is the interaction of the aggregated potential energy of quantum mass that effects the local kinetic energy density of external spacetime. In this sense there is no quantum gravitational effect; it is the combined interaction of the quantum mass effect’s localized potential energy and separate, externalized kinetic energy of spacetime that produces the gravitational effect.
Understanding gravitation as the interaction of localized quantum potential and the dispersed kinetic energy of the universe may address several shortcomings in modern physics, perhaps eventually bridging the relativistic quantum gap. Not being a scientist, I can only holler here from the crowd of unwashed onlookers (like yourself) and hope that some real scientist might find inspiration…

8. 8. Torbjörn Larsson, OM 7:23 am 04/9/2012

Thus endeth a piece that started to burn as a cryptoreligious historico-philosophico just so story in part 1 and went up in flames as a full blown religious humdrum Easter piece in part 2 – not in ashes but in shambles of religion instead of science.

The religio-political cult of communism is a particularly good block against the idea that some religion or other helped instead of hinder science between the Greeks and the Enlightenment. This cult’s religiously followed subordination to reification of leadership and dogma shows how such principles harm.

Of course you can also raise the point that this probably happened in all the cultures that never happened to implement empirical sciences, they all had their religions to fight as well.

The reason that one or other reified person did or did not discover a specific piece of science is tied into the hard to describe process of science. Why science is successful, I explained under part 1, it is due to applied empiricism.

Why science no longer was hampered by religion but could blossom under the Enlightenment seems to be the move toward increasing openness of the society as people could start to live more easily under a fragmented religious harness. And at the time it was Europe, not Asia, that followed up on the old Greek and Roman empirical achievements.

9. 9. Torbjörn Larsson, OM 7:35 am 04/9/2012

Thanks, billsmith, I missed that part as I get tired reading religious excuses. So I should have said that this piece ended up in accommodationist shambles instead. Which makes it even more a mess.

The author is trying another glib misdirection, because if he asks scientists, he would find that the majority of them are atheists and likely as most atheists would respond that religion and science are decidedly not compatible. Witness how the accommodationist project of supporting catholic “evolutionary” creationism (aka “theistic evolution”) makes creationism of one form or other thrive in the US school system.

The problem is of course that while science is in the business to replace belief with facts, religion is in the business to replace facts with belief.

“Notice the use of “Bible” rather than “religion””.

Thank you, that it was a blatant religious piece posted in a science magazine was obvious. :-/

10. 10. phalaris 7:43 am 04/9/2012

On the Needham question: this is a well-tilled field, and the lack of an accepted answer makes one wonder if this mistake isn’t in the question or in the assumptions. Questions like this about history -”why did the Roman Empire fall?”- seem to presuppose that history is deterministic, or that great events are monocausal. Historians often point out that many questions about history are effectively content-free (did the Druids build Stonehenge?) or contain presuppositions prejudicing the answer (asking why the South lost the Civil War, instead of how they held out so long).

The best examination of the rise of the scientific and technological preeminence of the west I have ever seen is by Jared Diamond in “Guns, Germs and Steel”, which is not mentioned. Diamond doesn’t seem to be liked by academics, perhaps because he doesn’t fall into the mould, or he say things they wish they’d said themselves.
But his thesis about the pluralism of European polities and religion at the time compared to the monolithic Chinese state is a powerful idea. Then, technological developments (paper, printing, transport) enabled the rise of a “republic of letters” with a rapid exchange of ideas. By the start of the 17th Cent. these factors produced a critical mass effect, which enabled the meteoric rise.

Deeper cultural and social factors may have played a role as well, but to point at one of them any say, “that did it!” is perhaps losing sight of the overall picture.

Not entirely by the way: the “original law” (part 2 of the posting) that drove Kepler didn’t derive from the Bible, but from Platonic philosophy (Platonic solids: http://www.amazon.com/The-Nobleman-His-Housedog-Partnership/dp/0747270228).

11. 11. vinodsehgal1957@yahoo.com 9:36 am 04/9/2012

To jtdwyer
Ref: today, I have sent some comments to you on this subject under a different article in SA ” Consciousness does not reside” under Mind and Brain Section. Please see the comments under that column.

I am not a scientist or a practitioner/teacher/ an expert in Physics. But if a scientist, based upon any intuitive thinking, can take a cue from a non-scientist also, examine the same with open mind and pursue scientific development further, I find this a rational approach.

My intuitive thinking states that gravity is an existential force which is either
1) An interaction between mass-mass particles, which is closer to Newton’s gravity, but so far physicists have not come out with a model of force of gravity based upon interaction of any sub-atomic particle(s). They have also not provided any empirical evidence for Graviton OR Gravity Waves(On the pattern of photon Or e.m. wave) Unless, some empirical evidence or strong theoretical background addresses these questions, question of gravity as a force shall remain unsettled

OR
2) An interaction between mass and space, which is closer to Einstein’s GR. But our understanding of the nature of space has not evolved to the extent to develop a theory of Space-Mass interaction. So far, dark energy and dark matter also remain engulfed in dark . Graininess of space, giving birth to a new space particle, has also not been proved empirically

So I can not understand what is novel in your concept of “condensed kinetic energy” of space

I do not know whether gravity as an attractive force arising from interaction between Mass & e.m./week/strong force has been given serious thought in scientific fraternity. If you know about this, please also enlighten me

Nevertheless, gravity is an ATTRACTIVE FORCE, whatever may be its origin

12. 12. Oneye 9:42 pm 04/9/2012

The 3 articles are rambling bunkum. Here is the line I take most issue with.

“Various social forces are working in a society to find out persons endowed with extraordinary curiosity and independent thinking and to provide them with necessary freedom to develop their personal abilities to make new inventions in science and technology.”

Never once in my life has anyone, never mind a social force, acknowledged or rewarded or encouraged or supported my extraordinary curiosity nor independent thinking nor even my inventions nor even my scientific hypotheses or theories. Freedom is certainly not the necessary ingredient – money is – and freedom is nowhere to be found. Instead, the marriage of falsity, fascism and thievery is worse than the Church that condemned Galileo. The ruined economy is a direct result of the excision of Wright-brother inventiveness, and academia in the USA today looks to me rather Lysenko-like.

The only thing my curiosity, thinking and inventiveness ever got me was punishment, rejection, derision, ridicule, scorn, poverty, and relief from my properties and inventions. They can’t even put me under house arrest because they took my house!

But why should we expect the world of 2012 to be significantly different from that of Galileo? What exactly has fundamentally changed?

13. 13. Dr. Strangelove 10:41 pm 04/12/2012

I doubt the significance of the bible to the development of science. It is merely incidental that some scientists are Christians. Are you saying if Christianity had not existed in 17th century Europe, there would be no Scientific Revolution?

Science is older than Christianity and the bible. The Egyptians and Babylonians had astronomy thousands of years before the bible was written. Archimedes was conducting experiments on hydrostatics and mechanics 200 years before Christ was born.

14. 14. LittleDragon 7:26 am 04/13/2012

It is not really about gravity but anyway here we go. The most prominent feature of Gravity is its time gradient. The random noise of space fluctuating “this external kinetic energy? whatever that means”. Material is moving toward slower fluctuation. What is it that is so strange about that? It gains kinetic or other energy in the process.

15. 15. hybrid 6:08 pm 04/13/2012

The quote from Newton’s friend did not say when Newton saw the apple fall, or if that was even the impetus for the theory. The friend was not a scientist, so why not explain the idea in a way a lay friend could understand?
Methinks the author just added this timeline critique for his own purposes, then discredited Newton with it.

For influences on inventiveness, consider that the caveman knew how to grow his own toenails, replace his teeth when he was 6, make babies and so on. Somehow or other these are “simple” demonstrations of an unknown source of intelligence.
This should be enough evidence to make intense thinkers consider that there may be a field of unconscious knowledge common to all but only dipped into by a few.
The few being geniuses, some autistics,or those with damaged or malfunctioned genes etc,—or perhaps by the misinterpretations of singular clerics?
Take a look at modern theory crediting space with energy.

You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Click one of the buttons below to register using an existing Social Account.

## More from Scientific American

### Scientific American Editors

More »

•
• Video of the Week
Space Oddity
• Image of the Week
•