greatest accomplishment mathmatically?

[acesovercole]

You can't even SPELL "mathematically" you [censored] baffoon!

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
ok we are not at school,if you cannot understand english,i am really sorry

[/ QUOTE ]
your writing is so bad that your first post is indecipherable. it's NOT english.

[acesovercole]

Kill yourself.

[acesovercole]

It is you who does not understand english.

[Dan87]

I hope the OP is 8th levelling us.

If not, [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope the OP is 8th levelling us.

If not, [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope acesovercole is, because he's [censored] up about 6 words so far.

[RoyalMag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Agreed. Leibniz's treatment of classical mechanics is also the standard we pretty much still use. Both were brilliant thinkers, but Leibniz was truly on a different level."

I'm sorry this is so wrong I want to vomit. Newton's version of calculus is the one we use today. Newton discovered GRAVITY dude.

[/ QUOTE ]

But he didn't generalize his second law in the same way Leibniz had done. He simply gave a linear relation between the force exerted on an object and its acceleration (F=ma as you may remember from high school). Leibniz was insightful enough to generalize a force to simply be any time varying change in momentum (F=dp/dt.) This is the way we still think about forces today; Newton, surprisingly in his published principia, used very little calculus and relied more heavily on geometrical reasoning, which we do not use today. As far as Newton "discovering" gravity, the concept of gravity as a force falls out of Leibniz's F=dp/dt, as a consequence of any object under the influence of gravity having a nonzero value for dp/dt, automatically showing there MUST be a force to allow that to happen, we just call it "gravity."

[/ QUOTE ]


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[flipdeadshot22]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Agreed. Leibniz's treatment of classical mechanics is also the standard we pretty much still use. Both were brilliant thinkers, but Leibniz was truly on a different level."

I'm sorry this is so wrong I want to vomit. Newton's version of calculus is the one we use today. Newton discovered GRAVITY dude.

[/ QUOTE ]

But he didn't generalize his second law in the same way Leibniz had done. He simply gave a linear relation between the force exerted on an object and its acceleration (F=ma as you may remember from high school). Leibniz was insightful enough to generalize a force to simply be any time varying change in momentum (F=dp/dt.) This is the way we still think about forces today; Newton, surprisingly in his published principia, used very little calculus and relied more heavily on geometrical reasoning, which we do not use today. As far as Newton "discovering" gravity, the concept of gravity as a force falls out of Leibniz's F=dp/dt, as a consequence of any object under the influence of gravity having a nonzero value for dp/dt, automatically showing there MUST be a force to allow that to happen, we just call it "gravity."

[/ QUOTE ]


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, ty I was waiting for that! you guys were starting to worry me too...

[Knives_Out]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Agreed. Leibniz's treatment of classical mechanics is also the standard we pretty much still use. Both were brilliant thinkers, but Leibniz was truly on a different level."

I'm sorry this is so wrong I want to vomit. Newton's version of calculus is the one we use today. Newton discovered GRAVITY dude.

[/ QUOTE ]

But he didn't generalize his second law in the same way Leibniz had done. He simply gave a linear relation between the force exerted on an object and its acceleration (F=ma as you may remember from high school). Leibniz was insightful enough to generalize a force to simply be any time varying change in momentum (F=dp/dt.) This is the way we still think about forces today; Newton, surprisingly in his published principia, used very little calculus and relied more heavily on geometrical reasoning, which we do not use today. As far as Newton "discovering" gravity, the concept of gravity as a force falls out of Leibniz's F=dp/dt, as a consequence of any object under the influence of gravity having a nonzero value for dp/dt, automatically showing there MUST be a force to allow that to happen, we just call it "gravity."

[/ QUOTE ]


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[/ QUOTE ]

Wtf is all of this f=d/p mumbo jumbo? This stuff aint in the bible. This guy needs to go get drunk, and relax, and stop worrying about all this scientific dogmatic hogwash.

[ASPoker8]

op is an idiot