Subtract One Isaac Newton

Obviously, we'd subtract any of the works that Newton contributed towards. Most notably: Principia Matematica.

So what does this change?

-Assume his work on Calculus was already done by Gottfried Leibniz. Thus this work on Mathematics is unchanged.

-Gravitational Theory. Newton took years to devlope the concept of gravity. It's not going to pop up any time soon. Certainly not until a genius like Albert Einstein. Maybe not even then. This was mostly due to Newton's look on science being influenced by his work on the occult. Remember that this was a view rejected by most modern scientists.

-Laws of Motion. I'm not an engineer, but I can only assume this would all influence future automotives, avionics, and submarines. Certainly, combine this subtraction to a lack of gravitational theory and any possibility of a space program disappears.

-Newton stabilized the British economy as warden of the Royal Mint in the 1690s. He put England on a bimetal system, and cracked down on counterfeiters. His work stabilized the British economy. How would a lack of Newton's economic efforts affect Britain's wars overseas, and could it butterfly away the American Revolution? Or would a less stable Britain only hasten a more violent revolution?

-William Chaloner creates phony conspiracies about Catholics to turn against the government. He would turn against the conspirators and profit from their downfall. Newton put Chaloner on trial twice, the second time finding conclusive evidence that he was engaged in counterfeiting. Without Newton on his ass, how greatly could Chaloner prosper? Maybe even starting his own colony in North America? (In OTL, he was hanged on 3/23/1699)
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Isaac Newton was the single most influential human being to ever live. Virtually all science after Newton was based, directly or indirectly, on the work that he did. Taking away Isaac Newton would create so many profound butterflies that it's hard to imagine.

Consider, for example, that Newton was held up as a secular god by the leading thinkers of the Enlightenment (especially Voltaire in France and Jefferson in America). His discoveries gave the idea of human progress credibility. Without Newton, the Enlightenment would have been vastly different, if it even happened.

Honestly, without Newton, I think that technology and society in 2000 may have turned out more like 1700 than OTL.
 
Obviously, we'd subtract any of the works that Newton contributed towards. Most notably: Principia Matematica.

So what does this change?

-Assume his work on Calculus was already done by Gottfried Leibniz. Thus this work on Mathematics is unchanged.

-Gravitational Theory. Newton took years to devlope the concept of gravity. It's not going to pop up any time soon. Certainly not until a genius like Albert Einstein. Maybe not even then. This was mostly due to Newton's look on science being influenced by his work on the occult. Remember that this was a view rejected by most modern scientists.

-Laws of Motion. I'm not an engineer, but I can only assume this would all influence future automotives, avionics, and submarines. Certainly, combine this subtraction to a lack of gravitational theory and any possibility of a space program disappears.

-Newton stabilized the British economy as warden of the Royal Mint in the 1690s. He put England on a bimetal system, and cracked down on counterfeiters. His work stabilized the British economy. How would a lack of Newton's economic efforts affect Britain's wars overseas, and could it butterfly away the American Revolution? Or would a less stable Britain only hasten a more violent revolution?

-William Chaloner creates phony conspiracies about Catholics to turn against the government. He would turn against the conspirators and profit from their downfall. Newton put Chaloner on trial twice, the second time finding conclusive evidence that he was engaged in counterfeiting. Without Newton on his ass, how greatly could Chaloner prosper? Maybe even starting his own colony in North America? (In OTL, he was hanged on 3/23/1699)

Isaac Newton was the single most influential human being to ever live. Virtually all science after Newton was based, directly or indirectly, on the work that he did. Taking away Isaac Newton would create so many profound butterflies that it's hard to imagine.

Consider, for example, that Newton was held up as a secular god by the leading thinkers of the Enlightenment (especially Voltaire in France and Jefferson in America). His discoveries gave the idea of human progress credibility. Without Newton, the Enlightenment would have been vastly different, if it even happened.

Honestly, without Newton, I think that technology and society in 2000 may have turned out more like 1700 than OTL.

I hate to interrupt the Isaac Newton Appreciation Society, but he wasn't that important. Yes, he was important. But as brilliant as his contributions - Optics, Calculus, Mechanics, Gravitation - were, they were up in the air at that time. Calculus was independently invented by Leibniz and was being developed by many others (the Bernoullis, for instance). The optical stuff was similarly brilliant but not greatly ahead of its time. Hooke's researches into mechanics went most if not all the way Newton did. Halley was fooling around with inverse-square gravitation before newton was, although he never got very far with it. Without Newton, science will be significantly delayed, but it will not stop - I'd say maybe a 20 year lag behind OTL at most.

Besides, Anax, Newton - however the humanists saw him - wasn't a scientist. "Newton was not the first of the age of reason. He was the last of the magicians, the last of the Babylonians and Sumerians, the last great mind which looked out on the visible and intellectual world with the same eyes as those who began to build our intellectual inheritance rather less than 10,000 years ago." (quote JMKeynes)
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Besides, Anax, Newton - however the humanists saw him - wasn't a scientist. "Newton was not the first of the age of reason. He was the last of the magicians, the last of the Babylonians and Sumerians, the last great mind which looked out on the visible and intellectual world with the same eyes as those who began to build our intellectual inheritance rather less than 10,000 years ago." (quote JMKeynes)

Strictly, speaking, Keynes may be correct. But that does not change how the Enlightenment thinkers perceived Newton, which is what is important in this matter.
 
Strictly, speaking, Keynes may be correct. But that does not change how the Enlightenment thinkers perceived Newton, which is what is important in this matter.

The historical perception of a givejn figure is often comparatively remote from the actual figure, which means it can be shifted to another relatively easily. Maybe in a Newton-less world, Leibniz would be more than just a cookie?
 
In those centuries, noblemen in France were obsessed with mathematics for its own sake. So with Leibnitz in place, math continues. And all of those theorems with French names remain in the text books with limited practical application until science and engineering has need for them from 1875 on.
 
Like said above. Many scholars throughout Europe were working in those fields. We don't have such a central figure that did so much by himself... but not some but all of his scientific work gets done in next 50 years. I'd wager good money on it. By 2000 science is maybe 20-30 years behind OTL or even less.
 
The delay would be short because most of the industrial revolution and early 19th century progress was dominated by inventors, not theorists. You are well into the 19th century before physicists and chemists started building the modern science that would exploit mathematical precision.
 
Top