That's one of the neat things about science. You don't take anything on faith. You don't believe Newton because he's smart and you venerate him. You believe only those things which Newton said which you can confirm with evidence; you discard things Newton said which don't conform to the evidence.
Yes ... you now have that luxury. Had you lived in 1803 (or something), you would not have that luxury. You would only have your false belief that Newton understood what **time** was, and how to calculate the momentum of high speed objects. [i don't know of any place where Newton said: "oh... these formulas get less and less accurate the faster stuff moves."]
Originally Posted By: tacit
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Apparently it has more meanings than you are able (or willing) to comprehend.
Originally Posted By: tacit
Newton said many things, none of which were taken on faith, and all of which were only believed insofar as they could be proven by evidence.
Wow... you know what everyone in the 1800's was thinking!?!?! Amazing.
Originally Posted By: tacit
When environments and situations were found where they did not match the evidence, they were superseded by more general ideas that did match the evidence, and also still matched the evidence in those places where Newton's ideas did. No faith involved.
That's your analysis... and i have mine... and that's what makes the world go 'round.
Newton himself had faith/belief that his notion/understanding of **time** as a component of physics was true/accurate. Let's see you spin that one professor.
[Of course -- as i said before -- i'm not faulting science where it takes things on faith. Let me know when they build that cockroach out of raw elements (not molecules snipped from organisms) so we can celebrate your faith being fulfilled. ]
]
