
Seth's Blog: Gravity is just a theory - twampss
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/12/gravity-is-just.html
======
mixmax
Seth should pick his examples more carefully, he obviously doesn't know
anything about science.

\-----------

Seth: _They say he discovered gravity. Nonsense. He just named it._

Fact: He didn't discover gravity, and has never been accredited for doing so.
The famous story of Gallileo dropping balls from the tower of Pisa to measure
gravity happened in the 17'th century, so obviously the idea of gravity was
around for a while before Newton. What he did do, however, was to publish the
Principia Mathematica in 1687 that gives an in-depth explanation of gravity,
including the famous inverse square law. In the book he theorised his three
laws of motion, invented calculus and basically lay the whoole foundation for
classical mechanics. This is what we remember him for, not for having named
gravity.

\-----------

Seth: _Everyone 'believes' in gravity. And yet, we know virtually nothing
about it_

fact: Seth should read up on his physics, starting with Einstein.

\-----------

seth: _There are very few people doing serious gravity research_

Fact: One of the major goals of modern physics is a theory of everything where
the four natural forces (weak force, strong force, electromagnetic force and
gravity) are combined into one. Gravity has always been the odd one out and
hard to explain, thus spawning massive research into gravity. One of the
reasone the LHC, the most expensive physical experiment to date, was conceived
was to learn more about gravity. Oh, and there's this guy called Einstein that
apparently did some work in this area too.

\-----------

Seth: _There are evolution skeptics who would prefer a different story, but no
gravity skeptics, even though there's a lot less science there._

Fact: Religion always tries to put down science that reaches contradictory
conclusions than scripture, and gravity is no exception since it implies that
the earth is not at the center of the universe. Seth doesn't seem to get this
though, since the battle was lost by the church long ago. Take Gallileo who
was on trial on the suspicion of heresy in 1633 because of his theories of
gravity. If found guilty he would have paid with his life. The laws of gravity
were much more opposed by the church than evolution is today.

~~~
mynameishere
_Fact: Religion always tries to put down science that reaches contradictory
conclusions than scripture_

Fact: Not "always". For the most part, religious people are oblivious to
science, and only highly visible matters like heliocentricity (gravity, less
so) become contentious. It's clear that he's making an imperfect metaphor and
the details aren't especially important.

That is, are you _marketing_ evolution? Even the smart lads believe in
evolution because it's fashionable, like the iphone, and not because they
followed through all the relevant citations. Rather, merely quoting the full
title of "On the origin of species" is enough to put fair weather Darwinists
in a tizzy--and the atheists are right in there with the Pope, depending on
how you advertise the inquisition. It's a marketing problem and has a
marketing solution.

~~~
mixmax
I'm not disagreeing with his central thesis, I'm just saying that it is
undermined tremendously by his bad examples.

And since he is in marketing he should know better.

~~~
wheels
A good marketing campaign is rarely deterred by facts.

------
PStamatiou
I might be going on a limb here but do we really need to have every single
Seth Godin post on Hacker News? Every few days there's a new one that somehow
reaches the top, doesn't offer much value and even has significant issues
(like this one).. I didn't really think this comment through but I know I have
become slightly annoyed with his posts flooding HN as of late.

~~~
mattmaroon
Totally agree. Most of his posts are useless. His total lack of physics
knowledge aside, most of his stuff doesn't even tell me how to market better.

~~~
petercooper
His posts are, however, often insightful and usually feature a fresh
observation.

While these rarely give you step 1 - do this, step 2 - do that type advice,
enough insights, when compiled together, can help you come up with ideas and
inspire insights of your own.

------
danhak
It always irks me a bit when science is pushed out of its comfort zone to make
some non-scientific point. Subtlety is lost, misconception introduced. And
language like "just a theory" suggests that scientific theory is much less
rigorous than it actually is.

~~~
maximilian
Exactly. A theory has been vetted by both experimentalists and theorists
multiple times until they are all so convinced a hypothesis works that it
moves into theory land. In the vernacular, a theory is just an idea, which
isn't the way its used in science.

------
Eliezer
Wow... apparently Seth Godin is my uncle wearing a clever disguise.

<http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/10/no-one-knows-wh.html>

------
raheemm
Seth's analogies of gravity and evolution may not be accurate, but his point
stands that the theory of gravity is less controversial than the theory of
evolution. Its also interesting how he illustrates the power of a story as a
marketing device. It is one of the many factors in the the success of
evolution vs. gravity.

He goes a step further and provides insights into the kinds of stories that
sell (or dont) - long stories and stories that go against the conventional
wisdom are harder to communicate.

Obviously, if you have a super-spectacular product like google search or
iphone (add in your fav product), you dont need to tell a silly story. But for
most folks who are in the business of creating/delivering mundane
products/services or who dont have a huge marketing budget, its nice to gain
an advantage. I think this is one of the reasons for the success of the
Balsalmiq guy - he has a nice product but his story of a totally transparent
one-person ISV going it alone is really compelling.

------
alexandros
Sometimes you have to go against the grain though. After all, evolution is
true, and marketing it as 'this is a great way to supplement your creationism'
(which Darwin actually did) may not exactly go over well or be the most honest
approach.

~~~
smanek
We don't know evolution is true. The most you can say is that evolution is the
best explanation we have for the data collected so far.

There have been pretty major revisions to the evolution since Darwin's time,
and I think it still needs a lot of work to explain some of its fuzzier points
('chemical evolution', cambrian explosion, etc). It's entirely possible that a
new explanation (i.e., not evolution) could better explain those and other
data points.

It could be similar to how newtonian mechanics works 99% of the time, but
couldn't explain the orbit of mercury. We needed relativity (which arguably
disproved gravity) to explain the handful of non-conforming data points.

~~~
kirse
_We don't know evolution is true_

I think scientists are still waiting on the results of the 100m year
experiment where a fish pen turns into a group of intelligent humans.

Honestly, I'm sure I'll get flak for this, but I can't believe people accept
Evolution as if it's some inherent and proven physical law as gravity. On the
macro-evolutionary level, there's so much bullshitting/extrapolation going on
(especially in the arena of speciation) that there's so many questions and
holes left unanswered.

Despite the fact that we only ever observe variation within a given _type_ ,
we're supposed to have faith in the scientists that (given enough time) we'll
get whole new kingdoms of life. As far as I'm concerned, those experiments
prove one thing: variation exists within a given type. Period.

~~~
KirinDave
So the overwhelming genetic evidence for evolution (viral markers shared
between species, shared genome, etc.) simply don't count for anything? The
fact that non-trivial organisms like E. coli have seen undergoing radical "in
type" changes that culminate the in creation of a new bacterial species
doesn't mean anything? We've seen speciation occur in short-lived creatures,
even above the single-celled level.

The "macroevolution is unproven" dodge is a very popular song and dance right
now, especially as Texas is gearing up for its Big Outdoor Criticism-Of-
Evolution Fight. But the reality is there is overwhelming evidence supporting
micro and macro evolution. It is difficult to reproduce the precise biological
conditions in a lab, but science is full of facts that cannot be reproduced
easily in a lab (e.g., stellar chemistry is all about experimental
compromises. We don't have the resources to keep a vacuum for 100m years).

I appreciate that you may have certain beliefs (be the religious or simply
skeptical) that make it difficult for you to accept evolution, and you have
nothing but my sympathy as you tackle this difficult issue. But evolution's
problem is _not_ a lack of evidence. If you believe that macro-evolution lacks
evidence, this is because you have not familiarized yourself with the
evidence.

~~~
kirse
_The "macroevolution is unproven" dodge_

Except it's not a dodge at all. E-coli is still E-coli, whether it powers
itself on glucose or citrate. Regarding Lenski's E-coli experiment, an earlier
study on E-coli showed uncultured strains of E-coli can metabolize citrate in
low-oxygen conditions: <http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/180/16/4160>

So that whole generation 31.5k citrate "evolution" in E-coli wasn't something
new, it was a forced adaptation to E-coli by lab conditions. Great job, we yet
again proved that a species is capable of adapting to extreme environments
within the limits of its genetic makeup -- chalk another one up to micro-
evolution and species adaptation.

Diane Dodd's fruit flies are still fruit flies, regardless of whether they
prefer mates who eat maltose or starch. A fruit fly's preference for a type of
mate does not create reproductive isolation (the two types can still
reproduce), nor does it even come close to producing an entirely new species.
This experiment is barely different than saying humans of a similar race
prefer to mate with each other.

So again, from an ID perspective there are many holes in macro-evolution
because it is entirely, 100% based on the faith in scientists that micro-
evolutionary changes will add up. There is not a single macro-evolutionary
study (and there never will be, because there isn't enough time) that
conclusively proves the change from one type to another. All we have is that
we can push a given type to it's pre-defined genetic limits by forced
adaptation in lab conditions (Micro).

So yes, there is an overwhelming volume of evidence for micro-evolution (which
I agree with - species adaptation in an environment and all), but here's the
way I see it:

Scientists can observe and verify many independent and separate processes
(examples: MicroEvolution works and Fossils exist). Each one of these
independent, observable items are like small Lego Bricks, all solid pieces
that you can build with -- of course, some fit together more properly than
others.

Except the only problem is that scientists don't have the instructions, nor
can they see the picture on the box, nor do they even have a clue how things
really get built in the Lego Universe. So what we effectively have is a bunch
of scientists that say "Well, these pieces fit together pretty nicely and we
created something that looks pretty decent (to us), but we have absolutely no
clue if we even built the right thing. Just have faith that the way we linked
these pieces together is how it really looks on the box"

~~~
KirinDave
_"E. coli is still E. coli, whether it powers itself on glucose or citrate."_

Except that one of the defining factors of E. coli is that it cannot process
citrate. But hey, I wouldn't want to ruin a perfectly good dodge.

And you've also neatly stepped aside the massive genetic evidence of
evolution. The fact that we have specific genetic patterns that are clearly
shared with proposed precursor species is pretty hard to ignore, which is why
nearly all anti-evolutionists never address that evidence head on, instead
attacking "macro-evolution" or older arguments like gap-arguments.

 _Except the only problem is that scientists don't have the instructions, nor
can you see the picture on the box. So what we effectively have is a bunch of
scientists that say "Well, these pieces fit together pretty nicely and we
created something that looks pretty decent (to us), but we have absolutely no
clue if we even built the right thing. Just have faith that the way we linked
these pieces together is how it really looks on the box"_

Which can be said of all science. Why do you hold special exception for
Biology? Physics has core theories that are not entire validated or not
understood, and yet you have no problem using a computer that works using
principles said principles.

Simply put, you're applying inconsistent criterion to these to preserve a non-
scientific ideology. You don't have a problem interacting with gravity,
electricity, or nutrition (a far less understood science). But the fundamental
unifying theory of biology? Well that steps on your minority fundamentalist
religious convictions! Time to draw a line in the sand.

And the most irritating part about this is you mention ID. The most ironic
part of ID is that it's _not inconsistent with evolution_. Evolution is just
the _mechanism_. It's well within human capacity to design evolving systems,
so why couldn't an omniscient God do the same? And indeed, wouldn't this
vastly simplify the process?

In any event, religious folks always try to mix mechanism with meaning. The
mechanism is something we can quantify and describe. The meaning is something
you are free to imagine in any way you want. Religion has always been first
about meaning and only later goes into mechanism when it begins to amass
secular power.

~~~
kirse
_...E. coli is that it cannot process citrate._

You must have missed that study I posted where it showed that E-coli already
has the capability to process citrate within it's genetic code, it's just
typically not utilized. Forcing something to adapt to an extreme environment
within its genetic confines is not macro-evolution, thats micro-evolutionary
adaptation. Let me repeat it: E-coli that processes glucose already has the
ability to process citrate within its DNA. All these experiments have shown is
that when you force a species to adapt it will adapt as far as it's genetic
boundaries enable it.

 _Which can be said of all science. Why do you hold special exception for
Biology?_

I don't. I am particularly skeptical of Macro-Evolution because (1) it is
entirely and completely unobservable and (2) is the human product of many
independent processes that have all been linked together. This Macro-
Evolutionary "process" is a creation of man, not inherent nor observable in
the universe like gravity, electricity, and the effects of nutrition. Unlike
physics, which is often provable through observation and mathematics, MacroE
is man's attempt to build the unobservable from what can be observed, and I
have every right to be skeptical when we move beyond the bounds of explaining
the observable to explaining the unobservable.

~~~
KirinDave
Once again, dodging the genetic evidence for evolution. But I understand why
you do it, it's even more irritating that recent fossil evidence if you've got
an axe to grind.

 _I don't. I am particularly skeptical of Macro-Evolution because (1) it is
entirely and completely unobservable_

Save for all that fossil evidence, genetic evidence, corroborating evidence in
short-lived creatures. Completely unobservable.

We have a _mechanism_ that we know works on real, living creatures. We have
_evidence_ that such process has taken place all over the earth on a large
scale. What we don't have is the exact process happening under glass so that
all you can do is avert your gaze.

And even if we had that the ID/biblical literalist movement would just move
the goalposts again. They always do.

 _(2) is the human product of many independent processes that have all been
linked together._

No different from physics. We have no unified theory, and many observations
remain unexplained.

 _The Macro-Evolutionary "process" is a creation of man, not something
observable and inherent to the universe like gravity, electricity, or the
effects of good nutrition._

All "scientific fact" is the creation of man. There is nothing privledged
about our physical models. Indeed, it's certain that our current models of
electricity, gravity, and nutrition are incomplete and probably deeply flawed
models. Science is not about proving absolute truth, it's about removing bias
from observation and building models to fit those observations.

Your metric of belief is strongly biased here, and only in the case of
biology. From what you've said, it's because your religious beliefs. You're
free to hold them, but I'm also free to point out that the scientific
consensus is that your religious fundamentalism is completely unsupportable
when it comes to how current species came into existence.

Sorry, but it's false. And I'm not afraid to say that, and a growing number of
people are standing up to the religious status-quo that has gradually been
holding America back from scientific progress.

~~~
kirse
_Save for all that fossil evidence, genetic evidence, corroborating evidence
in short-lived creatures._

Yet again, what you're saying here is "Trust me that I put all the independent
pieces together properly and that's what is shown on the box."

 _All "scientific fact" is the creation of man. There is nothing privledged
about our physical models. Indeed, it's certain that our current models of
electricity, gravity, and nutrition are incomplete and probably deeply flawed
models._

Of course it is! Except when we observe physical processes, we're not starting
with the question "Does this even exist?" but "Ok, we KNOW this exists, but
how does this work?". The difference between the two is very distinct, and
both are subject to man's interpretation.

Read this carefully: ----

Physics takes existing observable processes and deconstructs them so we can
understand them better. Macro-Evolution is the attempt to take processes and
make them add up (or construct) into a larger process that we don't even know
exists - you would agree that we've never observed Macro-Evolution since
there's not enough time. To further my physics example, they just spent
several billion on the Large Hadron Collider in an attempt to further
_deconstruct_ the nature of our world (notably, finding a Higgs boson).

\----.

~~~
KirinDave
_Yet again, what you're saying here is "Trust me that I put all the
independent pieces together properly and that's what is shown on the box."_

"Like all of the rest of science, where this process is good enough!"

Why isn't it good enough here?

 _Of course it is! Except when we observe physical processes, we're not
starting with the question "Does this even exist?" but "Ok, we KNOW this
exists, but how the heck does this work?". The difference between the two is
very distinct._

There is no difference between observations of these kinds. Our senses are so
incredibly flawed and unreliable, as are our minds, that there is basically no
difference when it comes to science.

 _The attempt to prove Macro-Evolution is the attempt to prove that it even
exists (or Does man's linkage of these independent processes indeed =
MacroEvolution?)._

It's funny that you say this. 8-10 years ago, the micro-vs-macro-evolution
argument was called "irreducible complexity", and the scale was much smaller
than what you're holding to now. "How could complex things like flagellum"
evolve? Well science has gone and shown that not only is it possible, it's not
hard at all.

So, your camp was forced to _move the goalposts_ and say, "Well that level of
complexity is okay, but now this level of complexity up here is totally
unproven!" And when we show you macro-evolution you'll just move the goalposts
again. Because it keeps happening over and over.

 _When we attempt to understand physics and other inherent universal
processes, we already know they exist..._

Except that even a casual understanding of science in history would tell you
this statement is grossly false. Heliocentricity comes to mind.

And while we're busy debating all this proof and you're picking tiny holes in
a remarkably well-researched theory that has risen to prominence as the
"unifying theory of biology", where does ID start offering complex studies?
Your life-origin of choice has basically nothing behind it save, "My bible
tells me so, it's certainly _possible_ , and I don't really believe your
evidence to the contrary." You cannot base a theory on negative statements and
the Bible.

Your position is intellectually bankrupt, your arguments presented thus far
are literally over 5 years old and well-debunked, the scientific community
rejects your hypothesis, and your pathological avoidance of the fundamental
inconsistencies you're proposing in being an anti-evolutionist are plain as
day to anyone without a religious axe to grind.

~~~
kirse
We're really getting nowhere, but I'm curious to know one last thing. Since
you seem to be speaking as an ambassador for the scientific community, which
one of these processes would have a more solid foundation in fact and truth?

1\. An empirically observable process that, by its very nature, is known to
exist.

2\. An unobservable process, where the very condition of existence is unknown.

There's a huge difference in the science of deconstructing what is known to
exist (the empirical) versus trying to construct the unknown. One is based in
solid fact and the extremely powerful truth of existence, the other is just a
pitiful shot in the dark and based on faith that (1) man has the intelligence
and capability to put things together properly (2) it even exists.

~~~
KirinDave
_We're really getting nowhere.._

You're right.

~~~
kirse
Are you not going to answer my question then? Or do you genuinely not know the
answer?

 _Your position is intellectually bankrupt, your arguments presented thus far
are literally over 5 years old and well-debunked, the scientific community
rejects your hypothesis, and your pathological avoidance of the fundamental
inconsistencies you're proposing in being an anti-evolutionist are plain as
day to anyone without a religious axe to grind._

If you're going to be summarily and swiftly dismissive under the premises that
I'm just another "anti-evolutionist" religious type, then proceed to insult me
and try to question the validity of my argument by saying I'm someone with an
"axe to grind", then you will at least acknowledge that the very science we
are debating certainly deserves its massive dose of skepticism from even
science itself, not just religious individuals.

~~~
logjam
I dismiss your "arguments" even more swiftly (you're not making any, you are
merely making tired, unsupported assertions).

The answers to your "questions" can all be found here, which 30 seconds of
googling would have found for you:

<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>

You're welcome.

~~~
kirse
Thanks for the link, it's all so obvious now! How can you ever go wrong when
you're the one who gets to define both the end result and then fill in the
means of getting there?

Of course the evidence will always point to the end result, because you're the
one who made up the damn end result in the first place! Evidence can always be
twisted and shaped to fit your view when you're the one who gets to define
what the picture looks like.

This isn't about whether the evidence points to the picture, it's about
whether or not we even have the right picture in mind. It's pretty clear that
since the end result (Macro-Evolution) cannot be empirically observed in
action, it is a contrivance of man of which it's existence is still unknown.

~~~
KirinDave
_The end result (Macro-Evolution) cannot be empirically observed in action._

Neither can God.

I do feel bad for you, kirse. 10 years ago I went through the same dilemma,
debate and denial. If you want to be rational, you have to learn the evidence.
If you learn the evidence and you apply rational, even-handed criterion to the
subject, the conclusion that evolution exists and at least partly explains our
modern world is undeniably apparent.

You literally have no rational leg to stand on. Your argument that the
conclusion was made up and the data forced to fit it is so obviously false
that it's almost laughable (few theories are as rigorously opposed as
evolution has been, if there were any significant holes the scientific
community would tear it apart).

 _This isn't about whether the evidence points to the end result, it's about
whether or not we even have the right end result in mind._

This is exactly 180 degrees from reality. If the evidence points to a specific
conclusion and that evidence can be replicated by diverse, neutral, competent
observers the conclusion is true regardless of if we like it or not. Science
isn't about picking a result then gathering data to support it, although if
you hang out with the ID crowd I can see why you might get that impression.

If you want an example we can look again to heliocentricity. It was not a
popular viewpoint, but the data forced people to accept that position, despite
the fact that it went against all the contemporary common sense and religious
belief (and despite the fact that it's difficult to observe contrary evidence
without a lot of bookkeeping and some optics).

P.S. I didn't answer your question earlier because I've already answered a
very similar question in debates dozens of times. Your crowd really needs a
revised playbook, because you can basically google ever question as presented
and get a powerful rebuttal to your every potential argument.

~~~
kirse
_The end result (Macro-Evolution) cannot be empirically observed in action.

Neither can God. _

Don't feel bad for me, because I am just as happy putting my faith in the
existence of God (an entity that cannot be empirically observed), as you are
putting your faith in the existence of Macro-Evolution (another process that
cannot be empirically observed).

As soon as Macro-Evolution is empirically observed, then I will accept it as
fact.

But for now, it's apparent we agree that it's simply a matter of where we're
assigning our faith, I'm more content believing that the correct picture/end
result is that these complex systems had a designer.

~~~
KirinDave
I feel bad for you because you've been programmed to be so radically
inconsistent. You act like evolution was made up just to weaken the theistic
position, but it wasn't. The model of evolution emerged from a host of
speciation models that existed, ranging from "God made it that way 500 years
ago" to complex and absurdly complex secular models involving generative
forces.

History is full of examples where a model emerged from lots of separate data
and turned out to be correct. Another great example is Atoms. For a long time,
people thought that an atomic model of matter _wasn't science_ because you
couldn't directly observe such tiny things. Turns out that was wrong. Then
along comes quantum mechanics, and now we're on even more bizarre and even
thinner ice trying to map out effects which _observation actually destroys_.

And yet we're making progress, just like we have in Biology. The ONLY
difference that is relevant to our discussion between quantum mechanics and
evolutionary theory is that your holy text has something to say about one and
not the other.

You're deliberately throwing out the evidence because you don't like the
conclusion. You're making a special exception for Evolution that no other
scientific theory has to make it through just because your religion tells you
to.

 _As soon as Macro-Evolution is empirically observed, then I will accept it as
fact._

No you won't. When I was younger I had heated debates that ended with, "As
soon as we can see evidence of flagellum evoling I will accept [evolution] as
fact." They didn't, and you won't. You will move the goalpost, draw new false
dichotomies, and struggle to preserve your world-view.

 _But for now, it's apparent we agree that it's simply a matter of where we're
assigning our faith_

Quite the opposite. You have decided to have faith, and I reject that notion.
Evolution is a useful model for biology, nothing more. If we can provide a
better model with excellent evidence involving invisible winged greyhounds, I
think that'd be way more entertaining.

You've admitted your position is based in faith, and that's why all the logic,
evidence, and reason that I can muster cannot unseat your position. Logic,
evidence and reason can only act on rational people, and your faith is–at its
core–inherently irrational.

~~~
kirse
_\-- History is full of examples where a model emerged from lots of separate
data and turned out to be correct._

History is also full of even more examples of models that have turned out to
be incorrect. Historical examples of validity have no bearing on the
independent validity of Macro-Evolution. And you're trying to lecture me on
basic logic and rationality?

 _\-- You're deliberately throwing out the evidence because you don't like the
conclusion._

Right, and you do the exact same thing when you take evidence that indicates
complex functioning systems have a designer and simply throw it out the window
in favor of your own model. This argument goes nowhere on both sides.

 _\-- You will move the goalpost_

No, I won't move the goalpost, because the goalpost is clearly defined as the
empirical observability of Macro-Evolution, in the same way that
heliocentricity was proven by its empirical observability. There is nothing
farther you can go than empirically observing a fully new type of life come
from one another. Again, stop trying to extrapolate your historical
experiences with others into an independent case. I will be firmly convinced
once I see a creature (a fish?) evolve into a cat or some other creature.

 _\-- You have decided to have faith, and I reject that notion._

Tell me then, how do you bridge the gap of believing that something exists
when in fact it cannot be empirically observed? However you may label it, the
belief in anything that cannot be empirically observed is never fully grounded
in rationality, but an intuitive feeling that it is the truth.

------
mamama
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world,
based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through
observation and experiment. e.g. General relativity has a lot of mathematics
backing it up.

Law: a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical
behavior. e.g F = ma. We don't know why it's true, it just is some sort of an
axiom.

------
zeynel
I think Seth Godin got it right. Some of the comments here also prove how much
Newton is a brand around which a perfect marketing campaign has been formed. I
wrote a post about this:

[http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/the-greatest-
market...](http://science1.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/the-greatest-marketing-
genius-of-all-time/)

------
zupatol
Newton's cheap trick to get famous is not giving a name to something everybody
knows. It's standing on the shoulder of giants.

~~~
zupatol
Maybe my post is not very clear.

Seth Godin implies that Newton became famous because of something that amounts
to a cheap marketing trick, instead of just being a genius who revolutionized
math and physics.

I say if you want to find something cheap in what Newton has done, the only
thing you can do is look at what modesty made him say about himself:'If I have
seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants'.

So now if you vote my post down, I'll know it's not a misunderstanding.

------
tokipin
i think gravity 'waves' travel at the speed of light

~~~
KirinDave
You're right. As far as anyone can tell, gravity propagates at the speed of
light.

We're just not really sure what is propagating, or why. LHC will hopefully
finally give us some useful observations on the subject.

------
debt
Poor Seth, just can't get it right.

