Hallo Pferdchen,

Wenngleich ich offen zugeben muss, dass Newton mir nicht sympathisch ist, seit er dem redlichen Leibniz die Infinitesimalrechnung gestohlen hat.

Inzwischen gilt zwar als gesichert, daß sich die Kommission der Royal Society, ähm, "geirrt" hat, als sie Leibniz des Plagiats schuldig gesprochen hat, das heisst jedoch nicht, dass umgekehrt Newton von Leibniz gestohlen hätte:

"We have seen that Newton's formative work on the calculus dated from
1664-1666, while Leibniz' analogous period was 1672-1676. However,
Leibniz' first publications on the calculus appeared in 1684 and 1686 (his
Acta Eruditorum articles), whereas Newton, although he had shown
manuscripts to colleagues in England, published nothing on the calculus
until his Principia of 1687 and his Opticks of 1704 (with the De Quadratura
as a mathematical appendix).

Beginning in the late 1690's Leibniz came under attack by followers of
Newton who assumed that he had taken and used crucial suggestions
(without acknowledging credit to Newton) from the letters of 1676, and
that he had learned of Newton's work during his brief visits to London in
1673 and 1676 (although he and Newton never met). Eventually, inferences
became public charges of plagiarism. Leibniz in 1711 appealed for redress
from the Royal Society of London (of which he was a member and
Newton the president). The Royal Society appointed a commission which
ruled in 1712, in a decision that was evidently stage-managed by Newton,
that Leibniz was essentially guilty as charged.

This unfortunate controversy had less to do with mathematics than with
nationalistic rivalry between English and continental European mathematicians
(see the article by Hofmann [8], pp. 164-165 for further details). Any
serious study of the investigations of Newton and Leibniz makes it clear
that their respective contributions were discovered independently.

An irony of the English "victory" in the Newton-Leibniz dispute was
that English mathematicians, in steadfastly following Newton and refusing
to adopt Leibniz' analytical methods, effectively closed themselves off
from the mainstream of progress in mathematics for the next century.
Although Newton's spectacular applications of mathematics to scientific
problems inspired much of the eighteenth century progress in mathematics,
these advances came mainly at the hands of continental mathematicians
using the analytical machinery of Leibniz' calculus, rather than the
methods of Newton."

Quelle:
C. H. Edwards Jr.: "The Historical Development of the Calculus", Springer-Verlag New York, 1979
Kapitel: "Leibniz and Newton", S. 266/267

Es ist nicht ungewöhnlich, daß eine Idee, deren "Zeit gekommen ist", in mehr als einem Kopf auftaucht:

Der polnische Astrologe Bogdan Krusinski warf dem tschechischen Astrologen Milan Pisa vor, die Berechnungsgrundlage für ein bislang unbekanntes "Häusersystem" (Drittelung des Raumes zwischen Horizontachse und Meridianachse) gestohlen zu haben.
Beide waren überrascht, daß es faktisch bereits ein Jahr zuvor von dem Schweizer Astrologen Georg Goelzer er-/ge-funden wurde und nachweisbar war, daß es danach sowohl von Krusinski als auch von Pisa unabhängig von Goelzer und voneinander er-/ge-funden wurde.

http://www.astro.com/swisseph/swisseph.htm?lang=g#_Toc502931386
ausführlicher: Georg Goelzer: "Der Ich-Kosmos", Anhang, http://dergruenevogel.org/frameset_haeusersystem.html

Gruß
Ulrich

Für Edwards und Goelzers Bücher gilt wie üblich ...