how did isaac newton change the world,not what he discoverd what changed from him.?
365932
maybe he's an atheist and did not believe in bible. Maybe that's the reason why he further speculated, and formed theories about the world.
326995
How would you lose mass?  By Newton, the mass must not change.  By Einstein, the mass slightly inscreases.
220477
Don't know what you mean by "spectom"(sp) Newton discovered gravity.
886267
Did you know that The same Isacc Newton invented the Calculus and aclculus is the best technique currently applied by physics of all dimentions to get the most accurate answer by spliting down a large problem into many different small steps of the problem inorder to get the most accurate answer available. thus generating the most effective solution in the world of physics.\nhe has contributed much to the society of man in the physical perspective. ironically he didn't have any prior mthematical knowledge when young.
133445
Although Newton is regarded most for giving the world an understanding of gravity with his 3 laws, Newton was one of the greatest thinkers of all time in MANY scientific fields. See link below.
134909
Alas, another one of our many unanswered questions... It's possible that Newton could have been wrong about just one thing, or perhaps there is something intelligent out there to cause it to happen... Or perhaps it was the force from some exploding star, or black hole...
375132
Newton's optics was based on light particles (photons). He could not have know about interference since no source of coherent light existed at the time for him to experiment with.
638322
begin our explanation of how Newton changed our understanding of the Universe by enumerating his Three Laws of Motion. \n\nNewton's First Law of Motion:\nI. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.  \n\nThis we recognize as essentially Galileo's concept of inertia, and this is often termed simply the "Law of Inertia". \n\nNewton's Second Law of Motion:\nII. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.  \n\nThis is the most powerful of Newton's three Laws, because it allows quantitative calculations of dynamics: how do velocities change when forces are applied. Notice the fundamental difference between Newton's 2nd Law and the dynamics of Aristotle: according to Newton, a force causes only a change in velocity (an acceleration); it does not maintain the velocity as Aristotle held. \n\nThis is sometimes summarized by saying that under Newton, F = ma, but under Aristotle F = mv, where v is the velocity. Thus, according to Aristotle there is only a velocity if there is a force, but according to Newton an object with a certain velocity maintains that velocity unless a force acts on it to cause an acceleration (that is, a change in the velocity). As we have noted earlier in conjunction with the discussion of Galileo, Aristotle's view seems to be more in accord with common sense, but that is because of a failure to appreciate the role played by frictional forces. Once account is taken of all forces acting in a given situation it is the dynamics of Galileo and Newton, not of Aristotle, that are found to be in accord with the observations. \n\nNewton's Third Law of Motion:\nIII. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  \n\nThis law is exemplified by what happens if we step off a boat onto the bank of a lake: as we move in the direction of the shore, the boat tends to move in the opposite direction (leaving us facedown in the water, if we aren't careful!).
80954
Galileo's laws of motion were sort of precursors to Newton's laws of motion. The law of inertia was actually Galileo's. Galileo investigated forces, but did not go as far as Newton. Galileo also felt all bodies would fall at the same rate in a vacuum, regardless of mass, contrary to Aristotle. \n\nGalileo (possibly with his student Viviani) also realized that a pendulum swings with the same period, independent of the amplitude of the swing.
637385
I'm assuming you mean Einstein, but I would have to go with Newton. He invented calculus and was absolutely revolutionary in developing elementary physics. Now, obviously Einstein was brilliant too, but at least he had a long background of physicists to build on. He stood on the shoulders of giants, one of which is newton.
57662
Very super question! Yes the answers above are right. Action-Reaction, sure enough. But you have asked what is totally QUESTION NUMBER ONE in physics. It's an exciting question which many teachers secretly don't understand and so their students get this hazy idea and kind of go thru the motions. Here's a way to remember and understand through a nutty story.\n\nWow, it is so basic, that it took a super-genius, I mean way smarter than Einstein, to figure it out. A good old farm boy, astrologer, magician & alchemist, religious fanatic, mathematician and all around kook. Yep. Sir Isaac Newton. You gotta wonder what kind of parents would name their kid "Sir"\n\nWell we all know what a force is, it is a sort of push or pull -- think of it as something that changes or *tries to change* the motion of stuff.\n\nNewton first figured out that if you leave a thing alone, or if the pushes and pulls on it cancel out, then it will sit there like a lump. Like those drivers wearing hats, and like sit there after the light has already turned green two minutes ago.\n\nOr else a thing will keep moving in the same straight line direction and speed like those drivers wearing hats who go 40 mph on the expressway with their turn signal blinking on and on. This is known as "THE HAT LAW".\n\nAll was well until he noticed that things move faster in an amount equal to how much you bully them or push them around. Twice the force, twice the fasterness and fasterness (also known as acceleration). This is called the "YOU BIG BULLY LAW".\n\nThen he discovered a fly in the ointment. His HAT and BULLY laws didn't really explain all that much. Something was gumming up this beautiful theory. We call it MASS and it is still an unknown mystery as to what it really is. So we vaguely call it the amount of stuff or matter in a thing.\n\nSo he found out that for a certain force the faster-isity (acceleration) is cut in half if you double the mass. The bully has to push twice as hard to fasterize two little kids. So he was like "I'll just add that in, and all will be cool". The "YOU BIG BULLY LAW" and "THE HAT LAW" totally did it all. Wa ta da babee!\n\nBut then Newton had a road accident. He was gunning his Harley over London bridge at like 250 when a bug hit him in the mouth and knocked out one of his wooden teeth. He was all "Why am I so in pain?". And the bug as it squooshed said "Help! I'm a bug!"\n\nSo spitting out the splinters of his wooden tooth and the splattered bug, he had this revelation. He realized that because he was moving so fast, and the bug slowed down so fast, that even a eentsy mass like a bug was like taking a hammer to his tooth.\n\nHe noticed that the force was equal to the mass of the bug times the speed of impact all happening in a brief moment. Since Newton spoke Latin (he was the love child of Joe Newton and an Italian governess) he wrote "Fastus buggus ina momentum hurtus like crazy." Today we call this "momentum". It is just "mass times speed" or "force times a small moment of time".\n\nAnd he realized that the bug smashed up his tooth, but also that the bug was squashed (like a bug) because they were trading the EXACT same amount of momentum. The force on the tooth by the bug in the moment of time was PRECISELY equal to the smacko-ing the tooth used to stop the bug dead.\n\nHe said "Hey, like he broke my tooth, but I killed him soooo dead!" He did the math and found that the force of the bug on the tooth was equal to the force of the tooth on the bug!\n\nNo way did the two equal forces cancel, after all, his tooth was hammered to splinters, and the bug was flattened. They were equal and opposite, but since one was on the tooth, and the other force was on the bug they did serious damage! Today we call this the "HELP I'M A BUG" law.\n\nNow our man 'Zack was all set. He wr
500405
A reasonable man tries to adapt himself to the world.\nAn unreasonable man tries to adapt the world to himself.\n\nTherefore, changes are made by unreasonable people.
510995
Well, I don't think it would change much.  It's most significant contribution is  that it was the first formal study, observation and written explanation of the process of natural selection.  People had known about natural selection for centuries at least, but either didn't have the necessary scientific skills or inclination to write them in a book.  I guess Darwin had those skills and passion, and he gets credit for it.  He is often misunderstood as the person who "discovered" evolution, which is inaccurate.\n\nToday, natural selection and evolution are so obvious that I doubt many people even read that book any more.  (It's kind of boring and tedious.)
795445
He invented nothing.  He revolutionized the world with a paper in 1905 and he developed the equation E = mc(squared) which ulimately led to being proved by nuclear fission and the detonation of the atomic bomb.
258571
The truth is that any cutting-edge field is "constantly changing."  It is poorly understood by lay men that in science, one does not suddenly make a discovery that is perfect in its original form and is instantly accepted by everyone.  Quite the contrary--every field of inquiry involves a battle of ideas and wills, with new data refining some old ideas, or maybe eliminating old ideas.\n\nTake the path of the earth around the sun.  Copernicus introduced a heliocentric (sun-centered) paradigm, and Europe exploded into cultural wars against the implications of it.  But contrary to popular belief, Copernicus was wrong.  His model was faulty.  Few people realize that the older, earth-centered models with the cumbersome concentric spheres was actually much more accurate than that of Copernicus.  Much later, Kepler figured out the problem with Copernicus' model and fixed it.  Copernicus had assumed that the orbits were circular, and this was incorrect.  Kepler used Brahe's data and deduced that the orbits were actually eliptical.  And guess what?  Even Kepler wasn't exactly correct!  His model was great for most of the planets, but there was one exception--Mercury.  That little ball of molten rock didn't quite behave as it should by either theory.  It wasn't until Einstein came up with his general theory of relativity less than a hundred years ago that Mercury's orbit was seen to fit the model.\n\nAnd all the while, controversies raged.  Copernicus' theories were seen as heretical, and Galileo was imprisoned for life for supporting them.  Einstein was denounced by German Nationalists for his "Jew Physics"--and even to this day, there are those that oppose relativity in favor of Newtonian physics, though they are (like creationists) rare in academia.\n\nYou get a distorted view of science by looking only at this current trial of a widely supported and broadly accepted notion of evolution by natural selection.  The bulk of the controversy is political, not scientific; and the few changes that we see within the evolutionary camps are the markings not of a weakness in the theory of evolution, but of the strengths of the scientific method.
989631
let me ask you this, what will it change for you? what does it matter? people tend to use their creation theories - god vs. evolution, as reason to discredit the other. it's all ego. what does knowing change? just accept. we're here. something put us here. follow your heart to decide what. but don't let not knowing for sure take up any more of your time. finding out isn't possible beyond faith. both sides have evidence, not proof. it doesn't matter.
928872
The rate of change of momentum of a body is proportional to the resultant force acting on the body and is in the same direction.\n\nIn an exact original 1792 translation (from Latin) Newton's Second Law of Motion reads:\n\nLAW II: The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed. — If a force generates a motion, a double force will generate double the motion, a triple force triple the motion, whether that force be impressed altogether and at once, or gradually and successively. And this motion (being always directed the same way with the generating force), if the body moved before, is added to or subtracted from the former motion, according as they directly conspire with or are directly contrary to each other; or obliquely joined, when they are oblique, so as to produce a new motion compounded from the determination of both.\n\nNewton here is basically saying that the rate of change in the momentum of an object is directly proportional to the amount of force exerted upon the object. He also states that the change in direction of momentum is determined by the angle from which the force is applied.\n\nHowever, it must be remembered that for Newton, mass was constant and independent of velocity. To take "motion" (motu) as meaning momentum gives a false impression of what Newton believed. Since he took mass as constant (part of the constant of proportionality) it can, in modern notation, be taken to the left of the derivative as . If  is dependent on velocity (and thus indirectly upon time) as we would now hold, then  has to be included in the derivative, giving  or .\n\nUsing momentum in the terminology (which would never have occurred to Newton) is a latter-day revision of the law to bring it into correspondence with special relativity.\n\nInterestingly, Newton is restating in his further explanation another prior idea of Galileo, what we call today the Galilean transformation or the addition of velocities.\n\nAn interesting fact when studying Newton's Laws of Motion from the Principia is that Newton himself does not explicitly write formulae for his laws which was common in scientific writings of that time period. In fact, it is today commonly added when stating Newton's second law that Newton has said, "and inversely proportional to the mass of the object." This however is not found in Newton's second law as directly translated above. In fact, the idea of mass is not introduced until the third law.\n\nIn mathematical terms, the differential equation can be written as:\n\n \nwhere  is force,  is mass,  is velocity,  is time and  is the constant of proportionality. The product of the mass and velocity is the momentum of the object.\n\nIf mass of an object in question is known to be constant and using the definition of acceleration, this differential equation can be rewritten as:\n\n \nwhere  is the acceleration.\n\nUsing only SI Units for the definition of Newton, the constant of proportionality is unity (1). Hence:\n\n \nHowever, it has been a common convention to describe Newton's second law in the mathematical formula  where  is Force,  is acceleration and  is mass. This is actually a combination of laws two and three of Newton expressed in a very useful form. This formula in this form did not even begin to be used until the 18th century, after Newton's death, but it is implicit in his laws.