A Contribution to the Newtonian Scholarship

Rocha, Gustavo Rodrigues

doi:10.24117/2526-2270.2017.i2.21

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this version, the processes adopted by Newton, which in general were difficult to understand, were simplified and placed more analytically, more accessible to the public. The differential equation method used by Euler in Mechanica was used as the basis for these analytical reformulations of the Principia (Rocha, 2017). Without Euler's method, this reformulation would not be possible.…”

Section: First Hypothesis: the Newtonianismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Kuhnian Analysis of Why, even after Euler’s Contributions, the Fundamental Principle of Motion is still “Newton’s Second Law”

Sitko

Silva

2021

Acta Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The F = ma principle was produced by Euler, between 1752 and 1776, and not by Newton in 1687, as is usually brought up in the physics manuals. It took over sixty years of conceptual and mathematical developments to develop this fundamental principle of mechanics. Still, after all this time, the principle continues to be called “Newton’s law”. Objectives: This paper seeks to discuss the possible reasons that led to the omission of Euler’s contributions to the elaboration of the fundamental principle of mechanics. Design: The study fits as documentary analysis, followed by a philosophical analysis of the researched material. Data collection and analysis: Historical research was carried out, using primary and secondary sources, regarding the reasons that led to such omission. After that, four main hypotheses were listed. Thomas Kuhn’s philosophical structure was applied to these hypotheses to support the explanation of the historical omission. Results: From the Kuhnian analysis, the Newtonian paradigm was presented and discussed, of which the principle formulated by Euler is part. Conclusions: The principle remains “Newton’s,” due to being within the Newtonian paradigm; and the conclusion that the principle ought to remain Newtonian matches the image of science within the baselines of the field of science teaching.

show abstract

Section: First Hypothesis: the Newtonianismmentioning

confidence: 99%