tombi123 said:
It might of been the 'cosmological constant' that he put into his equations because he believed the Universe was static and his equations predicted an expanding universe (before Hubble's discovery). Newton wrote three times more papers on Alchemy than he did on Maths and Physics combined. Although his use of Maths to describe the Universe was considered almost blasphemy by the academics at the time. |
Stuff that far away i'm hesitant to judge on.
I mean hell, few people even know that Darwin's theories on evolution had people who pretty much had concluded the same thing but just didn't publish it as scientific per say.
The problem with scientific revolutions is... often times there are a lot of people who agree with the person who made the discvoery... it's just they're younger... and there works often go unpublished or ignored... then it seems like there is a "wave" where everyone accepts the theory and suddenly a burst of new scientific inquiry... when in reality it's those who were ostracizied by the scientific community getting their time to shine as the older people are pushed aside their theories defunct.
Science as an orginization sadly doesn't work as scientifically as people would think.