> I think at the end of the day he was just a gifted flawed human.
And what gifts !
Imagine anyone doing Principia at an age of 24 (the book was published much later, but he had the results by then).
He would have been notable even if he had borrowed an established discipline of calculus to elaborate it's Physical consequences. No he had to develop it himself first and double check the results by translating that into geometry, into power series to be sure they are correct.
Einstein and Newton are often spoken of in the same breath, but by sheer body of work it seems a no-contest to me. Einstein had the luxury of being able to borrow tensor calculus, by then well formed. Perhaps the person who comes closest to Newton would be Archimedes, considering the time that Archimedes was doing his thing.
And what gifts !
Imagine anyone doing Principia at an age of 24 (the book was published much later, but he had the results by then).
He would have been notable even if he had borrowed an established discipline of calculus to elaborate it's Physical consequences. No he had to develop it himself first and double check the results by translating that into geometry, into power series to be sure they are correct.
Einstein and Newton are often spoken of in the same breath, but by sheer body of work it seems a no-contest to me. Einstein had the luxury of being able to borrow tensor calculus, by then well formed. Perhaps the person who comes closest to Newton would be Archimedes, considering the time that Archimedes was doing his thing.