Kepler's area law in the \textit{Principia}: filling in some details in Newton's proof of Proposition 1.
From MaRDI portal
Publication:1421933
Abstract: During the past 25 years there has been a controversy regarding the adequacy of Newton's proof of Prop. 1 in Book 1 of the {it Principia}. This proposition is of central importance because its proof of Kepler's area law allowed Newton to introduce a geometric measure for time to solve problems in orbital dynamics in the {it Principia}. It is shown here that the critics of Prop. 1 have misunderstood Newton's fundamental limit argument by neglecting to consider the justification for this limit which he gave in Lemma 3. We clarify the proof of Prop. 1 by filling in some details left out by Newton which show that his proof of this proposition was adequate and well grounded.
Recommendations
- The mathematics of the Area Law: Kepler's successful proof in \textit{Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae} (1621)
- From a central force to Kepler’s area law: student difficulties and preferences with two derivations
- Newton's argument for Proposition 1 of the \textit{Principia}
- On the geometrical and physical meaning of Newton's solution to Kepler's problem
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 6828421
- Newton's \textit{Principia} and inverse-square orbits: The flaw reexamined
- Area and moment in \textit{De analysi} by Isaac Newton
- Kepler's angular measures of uniformity: how it provided a potential proof of his Third Law
- Newton's mature dynamics and the Principia: A simplified solution to the Kepler problem
Cites work
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3463579 (Why is no real title available?)
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1943780 (Why is no real title available?)
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 767962 (Why is no real title available?)
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1419151 (Why is no real title available?)
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3216982 (Why is no real title available?)
- Newton's Polygon Model and the Second Order Fallacy
- Newton's Portsmouth perturbation method and its application to lunar motion.
- Newton's argument for Proposition 1 of the \textit{Principia}
- Newton's early computational method for dynamics
- On Hooke's 1685 manuscript on orbital mechanics
- Polygons and Parabolas: Some Problems Concerning the Dynamics of Planetary Orbits*
- The prehistory of the Principia from 1664 to 1686
Cited in
(17)- Kepler's angular measures of uniformity: how it provided a potential proof of his Third Law
- Newton's interpretation of Newton's second law
- From a central force to Kepler’s area law: student difficulties and preferences with two derivations
- The integrability of ovals: Newton's Lemma 28 and its counterexamples
- Consistency under sampling of exponential random graph models
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1421054 (Why is no real title available?)
- The mathematical form of measurement and the argument for Proposition I in Newton's \textit{Principia}
- The argument(s) for universal gravitation
- A dynamic extremum seeking scheme for three-player attack-defense with unknown gradient
- Newton's mature dynamics and the Principia: A simplified solution to the Kepler problem
- Mathematical models in Newton'sPrincipia: A new view of the ‘Newtonian Style’
- Robert Hooke's seminal contribution to orbital dynamics
- The mathematics of the Area Law: Kepler's successful proof in \textit{Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae} (1621)
- Newton's argument for Proposition 1 of the \textit{Principia}
- Newton's attempt to construct a unitary view of mathematics
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 797209 (Why is no real title available?)
- The early application of the calculus to the inverse square force problem
This page was built for publication: Kepler's area law in the \textit{Principia}: filling in some details in Newton's proof of Proposition 1.
Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q1421933)
