On reading Isaac Newton's Principia in the 18th century

Snobelen, Stephen D.

doi:10.1016/s0160-9327(98)01148-x

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Had Newton chosen to describe Proposition 1 in the Principia not only as a mathematical proof of Kepler's area law, but also as a graphical method to calculate approximately orbits for central forces, and had he also given for illustration some examples as those shown here, it would have made his book accessible to a large number of readers familiar with elementary geometry. But he chose otherwise, presumably "to avoid being baited by little Smatterers in Mathematicks " [5]. Moreover, I have shown that the initial lines in his diagrams for Theorem 1 in De Motu, and in Proposition 1 in Principia lead after only a few steps to a divergent orbit for impacts that vary inversely with the square of the distance from the center.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…. he designedly made his Principia abstruse; but yet as to be understood by able Mathematicians" [5] Presumably one person he had in mind was Robert Hooke, with whom he had often quarreled. But shortly after viewing an early draft of the Principia, entitled De Motu Corporum Gyrum, that Newton had sent to the Royal Society in 1685 [6], Hooke understood that Newton had implemented mathematically his own concept of orbital dynamics that he had communicated to Newton in a correspondence in 1679.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Visiting Newton's Atelier before the Principia, 1679-1684

Nauenberg¹

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The manuscripts that presumably contained Newton's early development of the fundamental concepts that led to his Principia have been lost. A plausible reconstruction of this development is presented based on Newton's exchange of letters with Robert Hooke in 1679, with Edmund Halley in 1686, and on some clues in the diagram associated with Proposition1 in Book1 of the Principia that have been ignored in the past. The graphical method associated with this proposition leads to a rapidly convergent method to obtain orbital curves for central forces, and elucidates how Newton may have have been led to formulate some of his other propositions in the Principia. .

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visiting Newton's Atelier before the Principia, 1679-1684

Nauenberg¹

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many wished to put the mechanics described in the Principia in easier terms. Not only are the scientists who made this "translation" responsible for the popularisation of Newtonian mechanics, but they are also responsible for transforming its nature (Snobelen, 1998). This simple translation did not happen because together with it, there was the elaboration of new concepts for the elucidation of mechanics problems in general because Newton's concepts were insufficient for a more general class of problems.…”

Section: First Hypothesis: the Newtonianismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When Newton's work hit the streets, popularised, without mathematics, it ceased to be a philosophical and mathematical text to become a more practical and enjoyable form of knowledge. Thus, those responsible for Newton's figure were then his advocates of ideas, the popularisers (Snobelen, 1998).…”

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

“…12 As to more modern literature concerning the Principia, we can refer, without pretension to be exhaustive, (generally) to: Panza (2003); Ahnert (2004); Baillon (2004); Bricker & Hughes (1990); Buchwald & Feingold (2011);Calinger (1968);Calinger (1969); Carriero (1990); Casini (1998); Cohen (1990); Cohen & Smith (2002); Crasta (1989); Dear (1998);De Gandt (1995); Ducheyne (2005); Feingold (2004);Fellmann (1988);Ferrone (1982);Forbes (1978); Force (1983); Force (1985); Force (2004); Force & Hutton (2004); Guicciardini (1989 et succ. ); Hall (1978); Hankins (1990);Haycock (2004); Heimann and McGuire (1971); Hutton (2004a); Hutton (2004b);Jacob (1977);Jacob (1978); KingHele & Rupert Hall (1988); Mandelbrote (2004); Marcialis (1989); Pulte & Mandelbrote (2011);; Rattansi (1981); Rouse Ball (1893Ball ( , 1972, Rupert Hall (1999); Shank (2008); Snobelen (1998);Stewart (2004);…”

Section: -32mentioning

confidence: 99%