Electronic edition published by Cultural Heritage Langauge Technologies (with permission from Charles Scribners and Sons) and funded by the National Science Foundation International Digital Libraries Program. This text has been proofread to a low degree of accuracy. It was converted to electronic form using data entry.
NEWTON, ISAAC (b. Woolsthorpe, England,
25 December 1642; d. London, England, 20 March
1727), mathematics, dynamics, celestial mechanics,
astronomy, optics, natural philosophy.
Dynamics, Astronomy, and the Birth of the
“Principia.”
way: that is, according to intension or extension.”
He defined bodies, in the later medieval language of
the intension and remission of forms, as “denser when
their inertia is more intense, and rarer when it is more
remiss.”
In a final set of “Propositions on Non-Elastic
Fluids” (in which there are two axioms and two
propositions), axiom 2, “Bodies in contact press each
other equally,” suggests that the eventual third law of
motion (Principia, axiom 3: “To every action is always
opposed an equal and opposite reaction”) may have
arisen in application to fluids as well as to the impact
of bodies. The latter topic occurs in another early
manuscript, “The Lawes of Motion,” written about
1666 and almost certainly antedating the essay on
Descartes and his Principia.116 Here Newton developed
some rules for the impact of “bodyes which are absolutely
hard,” and then tempered them for application
to “bodyes here amongst us,” characterized by
“a relenting softnesse & springynesse,” which “makes
their contact be for some time in more points than
one.”
Newton's attention to the problems of elastic and
inelastic impact is manifest throughout his early
writings on dynamics. In the Principia it is demonstrated
by the emphasis he there gave the concept of
force as an “impulse,” and by a second law of motion
(Lex II, in all editions of the Principia) in which he set
forth the proportionality of such an impulse (acting
instantaneously) to the change in momentum it
produces.117 In the scholium to the laws of motion
Newton further discussed elastic and inelastic impact,
referring to papers of the late 1660's by Wallis, Wren,
and Huygens. He meanwhile developed his concept
of a continuously acting force as the limit of a series
of impulses occurring at briefer and briefer intervals
in infinitum.118
Indeed, it was not until 1679, or some time between
1680 and 1684, following an exchange with Hooke,
that Newton achieved his mature grasp of dynamical
principles, recognizing the significance of Kepler's area
law, which he had apparently just encountered. Only
during the years 1684-1686, when, stimulated by
Halley, he wrote out the various versions of the tract
De motu and its successors and went on to compose
the Principia, did Newton achieve full command of
his insight into mathematical dynamics and celestial
mechanics. At that time he clarified the distinction
between mass and weight, and saw how these two
quantities were related under a variety of circumstances.
Newton's exchange with Hooke occurred when the
latter, newly appointed secretary of the Royal
Society, wrote to Newton to suggest a private
philosophical correspondence. In particular, Hooke
asked Newton for his “objections against any hypothesis
or opinion of mine,” particularly “that of
compounding the celestiall motions of the planetts of
a direct motion by the tangent & an attractive motion
towards the centrall body....” Newton received the
letter in November, some months after the death of
his mother, and evidently did not wish to take up the
problem. He introduced, instead, “a fancy of my own
about discovering the Earth's diurnal motion, a
spiral path that a freely falling body would follow as it
supposedly fell to Earth, moved through the Earth's
surface into the interior without material resistance,
and eventually spiralled to (or very near to) the
Earth's centre, after a few revolutions.”119
Hooke responded that such a path would not be a
spiral. He said that, according to “my theory of
circular motion,” in the absence of resistance, the
body would not move in a spiral but in “a kind [of]
Elleptueid,” and its path would “resemble an
Ellipse.” This conclusion was based, said Hooke, on
“my Theory of Circular Motions [being] compounded
by a Direct [that is, tangential] motion and an
attractive one to a Centre.” Newton could not ignore
this direct contradiction of his own expressed
opinion. Accordingly, on 13 December 1679, he wrote
Hooke that “I agree with you that ... if its gravity be
supposed uniform [the body would] not descend in
a spiral to the very centre but circulate with an
alternate descent & ascent.” The cause was “its
vis centrifuga & gravity alternately overballancing
one another.” This conception was very like Borelli's,
and Newton imagined that “the body will not describe
an Ellipsoeid,” but a quite different figure. Newton
here refused to accept the notion of an ellipse produced
by gravitation decreasing as some power of the
distance—although he had long before proved that
for circular motion a combination of Kepler's third
law and the rule for centrifugal force would yield a
law of centrifugal force in the inverse square of the
distance. There is no record of whether his reluctance
was due to the poor agreement of the earlier moon test
or to some other cause.
Fortunately for the advancement of science, Hooke
kept pressing Newton. In a letter of 6 January 1680
he wrote “... But my supposition is that the Attraction
always is in a duplicate proportion to the Distance
from the Centre Reciprocall, and Consequently that
the Velocity will be in a subduplicate proportion to
the Attraction, and Consequently as Kepler Supposes
Reciprocall to the Distance.” We shall see below that
this statement, often cited to support Hooke's claim
to priority over Newton in the discovery of the
inverse-square law, actually shows that Hooke was not