IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Info is in the Principia.
[link|http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/history.htm|Here] is a little history:

The birth of the Principia may be traced back to a discussion in 1684 at the Royal Society. Astronomer Edmund Halley and architect Sir Christopher Wren suspected that there was an inverse square relation governing celestial motions based on Kepler's Third Law of elliptical orbits, but no one could prove it. They brought the question before Newton's arch rival Robert Hooke, who claimed that he could prove the inverse square law and all three of Kepler's laws. His claim was met with scepticism, and Wren offered a forty-shilling book as a prize for the correct proof within a two-month limit. Hooke failed to produce the calculation, and Halley travelled to Cambridge to ask for Newton's opinion. Newton responded with a typical lack of interest in work that he had already completed, that he had already solved the problem years before. He could not find the calculation among his papers and promised to send Halley a proof. Halley, suspecting the same bogus claim he had received from Hooke, left frustrated and returned to London. Three months later he received a nine page treatise from Newton, written in Latin, De Motu Corporum, or On the Motions of Bodies in Orbit. In it, Newton offers the correct proof of Kepler's laws in terms of an inverse square law of gravitation and his three laws of motion. Halley suggested publication, but Newton, reluctant to appear in print, refused. At Halley's insistence, Newton finally began writing and, with typical thoroughness, worked for 18 months revising and rewriting the short paper until it grew into three volumes. The Royal Society, having exhausted available funds on an extravagant edition of De Historia Piscium, or The History of Fishes, could not pay for the publication and so it was at Edmund Halley's expense that Philosophi\ufffd Naturalis Principia Mathematica was finally published.

The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, or The Principia as it came to be commonly known, begins with the solid foundation on which the three books rest. Newton begins by defining the concepts of mass, motion (momentum), and three types of forces: inertial, impressed and centripetal. He also gives his definitions of absolute time, space, and motion, offering evidence for the existence of absolute space and motion in his famous "bucket experiment". These absolute concepts provoked great criticism from philosophers Leibnitz, Berkeley, and others, including Ernst Mach centuries later. The three Laws of Motion are proposed, with consequences derived from them. The remainder of The Principia continues in rigorously logical Euclidean fashion in the form of propositions, lemmas, corollaries and scholia. Book One, Of The Motion of Bodies, applies the laws of motion to the behaviour of bodies in various orbits. Book Two continues with the motion of resisted bodies in fluids, and with the behaviour of fluids themselves. In the Third Book, The System of the World, Newton applies the Law of Universal Gravitation to the motion of planets, moons and comets within the Solar System. He explains a diversity of phenomena from this unifying concept, including the behaviour of Earth's tides, the precession of the equinoxes, and the irregularities in the moon's orbit.

The Principia brought Newton fame, publicity, and financial security. It established him, at the age of 45, as one of the greatest scientists in history.


Bless the workaholics.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Re: Info is in the Principia.
I am highly skeptical of this "history".

The idea of "inverse square law" originating in anyone other than Newton is absurd - there were NO dynamical laws of ANY KIND before Newton wrote them, and indeed this is his actual achievement - putting down a distinct, well-defined dynamical theory of matter. The whole idea of force itself was invented by him, and indeed the mathematical method to describe it.

Newton antagonized many of his colleagues, who he must have understood were so far behind him that education was hopeless. Newton did not always behave in the most straightforward manner and let his frustrations get the better of him on occasion. But there is not a shred of doubt that "inverse square law of gravity" is Newton's alone. Halley's speculation about "attraction according to the reciprocal duplicate proportion" cannot be called a force law. Indeed while he was speculating about this problem, the solution was already known to Newton, who had tired of battling with the loudmouth Hooke (the string theorist of his day), had withdrawn and refused to publish his work. Halley deserves great credit for putting up with the nearly paranoic Newton and in getting him to come out of his shell and explain his work. This was the real origin of the Principia, and Halley's actual contribution.
-drl
New I'm not
The description exactly matches a decent biography of Newton's that I read recently. Hooke had good intuition and nothing else. He guessed what the right law of gravity was, and knew what he'd have to show to show that it was right. However it was all guesses, Hooke didn't have the mathematical techniques to tackle the problem. He just had good intuition and a big mouth.

Newton had been over the same territory decades earlier, with the right math, and enough elbow grease to back it up. There is no question that Newton had the result long before Hooke's boast. Furthermore Newton seems to have suspected that Hooke couldn't have come up with that guess, and believed that Hooke must have stolen it somehow from Newton.

This took place, of course, after Hooke and Newton had already tangled about optics. That Halley got Newton to admit to having a proof, and further got Newton to publish it is a testament both to Halley's dedication and some luck. It probably helped that Newton tried to prove his point by sending a "challenge" to the Royal Society, one which Newton made a mathematical mistake in his treatment of, and one which Hooke guessed right. (The challenge was that under an inverse square law, when an object is dropped, does it actually fall straight down? Hooke guessed the right answer from Kepler's laws.)

Newton's public embarrassment may have played a role in Newton's decision to produce as comprehensive a work as he did. There is no question that Newton's irritations over Hooke's past quibbling and grandstanding was part of why Newton deliberately made the Principia hard to read. Newton wanted to make sure that anyone who wanted to comment had to READ the blasted thing first. (He says as much in letters to people.)

Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
     I won't walk on coals about that - (ben_tilly) - (183)
         Science and Religion meet here - (orion) - (116)
             There is a Christian anti everything else . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (6)
                 Not every Christian is a fundamentalist - (orion) - (5)
                     Re: Not every Christian is a fundamentalist - (deSitter) - (4)
                         Amen, brother-- and with holy vestments and 'blessed' oil.. -NT - (Ashton)
                         Stupidest thing I've read all year. - (cwbrenn) - (2)
                             Care to explain why? - (deSitter) - (1)
                                 Or, in the words of Heinrich Heine: - (a6l6e6x)
             No, they do NOT meet here - (ben_tilly) - (30)
                 Yes indeed they do - (orion) - (29)
                     Talk about rapidly changing your position - (ben_tilly) - (6)
                         Fix your ring species link, please. - (admin)
                         Not really - (orion) - (4)
                             You can use whatever definition you want - (ben_tilly) - (3)
                                 Let us just agree to disagree then. - (orion) - (2)
                                     /me chuckles while pulling hair out -NT - (bepatient)
                                     Yes, we have passed the point of uselessness - (ben_tilly)
                     Norman... - (pwhysall) - (21)
                         Peter... - (orion) - (20)
                             Riiiiiight. - (pwhysall) - (19)
                                 Re: Riiiiiight. - (deSitter) - (1)
                                     Re: Riiiiiight. - (pwhysall)
                                 It is because - (orion) - (16)
                                     potential root cause is fear of death? Interesting - (boxley) - (15)
                                         Fear of the known - (orion) - (14)
                                             so fear is the main issue - (boxley) - (13)
                                                 "The Gift of Fear" is an interesting book. - (Another Scott)
                                                 Perhaps it is part of the illness - (orion) - (11)
                                                     Re: Perhaps it is part of the illness - (deSitter) - (10)
                                                         You have no idea what you are talking about - (Nightowl) - (9)
                                                             Re: You have no idea what you are talking about - (deSitter) - (3)
                                                                 You clearly stated... - (Nightowl) - (2)
                                                                     Re: You clearly stated... - (deSitter) - (1)
                                                                         Well as Scott said in the Hardware forum - (Nightowl)
                                                             Not to mention - (orion) - (4)
                                                                 Re: Not to mention - (deSitter)
                                                                 perhaps you need to take up driving in demolition derbies - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                     You have a point - (orion)
                                                                 Nah, I agree with Ross - (lister)
             Science and Religion don't intersect much. - (JayMehaffey) - (60)
                 Re: Science and Religion don't intersect much. - (deSitter)
                 Oh yeah? - (orion) - (58)
                     Still not getting it - (JayMehaffey) - (57)
                         No you are not getting it - (orion) - (56)
                             Re: No you are not getting it - (JayMehaffey) - (54)
                                 You are getting some of it - (orion) - (53)
                                     Re: You are getting some of it - (JayMehaffey) - (52)
                                         One more time with feeling - (orion) - (51)
                                             Re: One more time with feeling - (JayMehaffey) - (7)
                                                 Some more information - (orion) - (6)
                                                     What was the point of that? - (JayMehaffey) - (5)
                                                         The point was - (orion) - (4)
                                                             Re: The point was - (JayMehaffey) - (3)
                                                                 Apparently you missed part of that review quote - (orion) - (2)
                                                                     "Were atheists" ne "are atheists" - (ben_tilly)
                                                                     I saw that - (JayMehaffey)
                                             Ah, yes - (ben_tilly) - (42)
                                                 It shows an example - (orion) - (41)
                                                     You need some perspective - (ben_tilly) - (40)
                                                         excellent +10 - (deSitter)
                                                         And that is a decently compact one. - (Ashton)
                                                         More suspect evidence - (orion) - (37)
                                                             Talk about missing the point - (ben_tilly) - (36)
                                                                 I was presented it as - (orion) - (35)
                                                                     What is that about motes vs beams? - (ben_tilly) - (34)
                                                                         The truth is - (orion) - (33)
                                                                             Do you think that your opinion should count or not? - (ben_tilly) - (32)
                                                                                 Everyone's opinions count - (orion) - (30)
                                                                                     Re: Everyone's opinions count - (jake123) - (28)
                                                                                         Re: Everyone's opinions count - (deSitter)
                                                                                         Here in the US - (orion) - (26)
                                                                                             Not the same. - (admin) - (6)
                                                                                                 I only ask - (orion) - (5)
                                                                                                     That's not what you said. -NT - (admin) - (4)
                                                                                                         What did I say? - (orion) - (3)
                                                                                                             MWBC. 'nuff said. -NT - (jake123) - (2)
                                                                                                                 Sorry I did not get that - (orion) - (1)
                                                                                                                     Here's the one that I mean: - (jake123)
                                                                                             Re: Here in the US - (jake123) - (18)
                                                                                                 Well I could have been reading it wrong - (orion) - (17)
                                                                                                     That wasn't your point - (jake123) - (16)
                                                                                                         I had many points - (orion) - (15)
                                                                                                             Passive aggressive too -NT - (jake123) - (14)
                                                                                                                 You got more to add? - (orion) - (13)
                                                                                                                     Yes - (jake123) - (1)
                                                                                                                         I do agree with you somewhat - (orion)
                                                                                                                     Ok, let me have a whack at it - (hnick) - (10)
                                                                                                                         Qualified opinions - (orion) - (9)
                                                                                                                             Shopping for experts - (ben_tilly) - (8)
                                                                                                                                 Heh.. - (Ashton)
                                                                                                                                 Searching for experts - (orion) - (6)
                                                                                                                                     Any possibility of useful conversation has ended - (ben_tilly) - (5)
                                                                                                                                         Obviously you are mistaken - (orion)
                                                                                                                                         Let me put it another way - (orion) - (3)
                                                                                                                                             Re: Let me put it another way - (JayMehaffey)
                                                                                                                                             Please review the thread from the beginning. - (Another Scott)
                                                                                                                                             Die, Norman! Die! (new thread) - (rcareaga)
                                                                                     But not equally - (ben_tilly)
                                                                                 In the words of Dinah Maria Mulock Craik, - (a6l6e6x)
                             You learn to Love the Mystery - (Ashton)
             You need to understand the meaning of the words you're using - (Another Scott) - (15)
                 Re: You need to understand the meaning of the words you're u - (deSitter) - (14)
                     9 times 6 is 42. -NT - (admin)
                     Yes and no. - (Another Scott) - (9)
                         That is not the reasonableness that Ross is asserting - (ben_tilly) - (8)
                             Hume discussed this - (jake123) - (1)
                                 And to quote Aleister Crowley . . - (Andrew Grygus)
                             Even more interesting "reasonableness" - (Arkadiy) - (5)
                                 Info is in the Principia. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                     Re: Info is in the Principia. - (deSitter) - (1)
                                         I'm not - (ben_tilly)
                                 Several things - (ben_tilly)
                                 Re: Even more interesting "reasonableness" - (deSitter)
                     To quote Slim Pickens in Blazing Saddles... - (danreck) - (2)
                         Re: To quote Slim Pickens in Blazing Saddles... - (deSitter) - (1)
                             It is the highest compliment I can give. - (danreck)
             And ill met they are - (tuberculosis)
         What I find unreasonable. - (static) - (64)
             Re: What I find unreasonable. - (deSitter)
             But that WAS NOT excluded from the possibilities! - (ben_tilly) - (41)
                 Oops? - (Nightowl)
                 I've been staying out of this... - (Nightowl) - (15)
                     Quite a few believe that - (ben_tilly) - (14)
                         I'm in that group - (FuManChu)
                         Speaking of Catholic thought - (ChrisR) - (12)
                             Nowhere in particular - (ben_tilly) - (11)
                                 Tielhard only wrote once about Piltdown - (ChrisR) - (10)
                                     As I said, this I do not know about - (ben_tilly) - (9)
                                         As long as this thread won't die - (ChrisR) - (8)
                                             I see no evidence of a global goal direction - (ben_tilly) - (7)
                                                 Meandering along - (ChrisR) - (6)
                                                     Re: Meandering along - (deSitter) - (4)
                                                         Which touches on a different concern I've had.... - (ChrisR) - (1)
                                                             Exactly! - (deSitter)
                                                         Your knowledge is insufficient - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                                                             Fascinating - I stand corrected! - (deSitter)
                                                     The boundaries are broader than you might think - (ben_tilly)
                 Good. - (static) - (23)
                     You did not answer the question - (ben_tilly) - (4)
                         I rather thought I did. - (static) - (3)
                             Bullshit - (ben_tilly) - (2)
                                 I made a mistake. - (static) - (1)
                                     How you should interpret my actions - (ben_tilly)
                     Pardon me, but that'll be when pigs fly. - (mmoffitt) - (17)
                         Why would I assail you? - (ben_tilly) - (16)
                             Okay, here we go. - (mmoffitt) - (15)
                                 Umm *cough* - I thought this had been "done": piecemeal - (Ashton) - (7)
                                     "Silly that"? - (mmoffitt) - (6)
                                         Re: "Silly that"? - (deSitter) - (4)
                                             Unless they look too deep. - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                                 ? It's right on the surface - (deSitter) - (1)
                                                     Concur. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                 You have to know what is relevant - (ben_tilly)
                                         Re: "Silly that"? - (Ashton)
                                 I think that you misunderstood me then - (ben_tilly) - (6)
                                     What we can agree to disagree on. - (mmoffitt) - (5)
                                         If you need actual proof... - (ben_tilly) - (4)
                                             Ah... - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                                 Depends on which mathematical truth... - (ben_tilly) - (2)
                                                     IMO 'religion' is oft a sub-set: religiosity - (Ashton) - (1)
                                                         Einstein's thought on that: - (a6l6e6x)
             "special creation may have occurred" - (Ashton) - (4)
                 Ashton you know me better than that. - (static) - (3)
                     I think you meant... - (Nightowl) - (1)
                         Dang. Thanks. -NT - (static)
                     Why, of course.. - (Ashton)
             Touching faith in the GICB's omnipotence. - (Silverlock) - (15)
                 Re: Touching faith in the GICB's omnipotence. - (deSitter) - (2)
                     Fundamentalists don't like mystery - (JayMehaffey)
                     It is the Heat Death of the literalists - - (Ashton)
                 Re: "right wicked sense of humor"? - (a6l6e6x) - (11)
                     What I believe - (orion) - (10)
                         Re: What I believe - (JayMehaffey) - (9)
                             Re: What I believe - (Ashton) - (2)
                                 While you were out: - (danreck) - (1)
                                     s'OK Danno - (Ashton)
                             I see it as this - (orion) - (5)
                                 Didn't address the issue - (JayMehaffey) - (4)
                                     Disagree - (ben_tilly) - (3)
                                         That's true - (Nightowl)
                                         Re: Disagree - (JayMehaffey) - (1)
                                             It's most likely pointless - (Ashton)
         Faith and Science - (andread)

Some have good ideas and some.. just have ideas.
550 ms