Newton's argument for Proposition 1 of the \textit{Principia}

DOI10.1007/S00407-002-0062-XMaRDI QIDQ1809896zbMATH OpenOpenAlexFDO

Authors Bruce Pourciau

Publication date 28 October 2003

Published in Archive for History of Exact Sciences (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s00407-002-0062-x

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

History of mathematics in the 17th century (01A45) History of mechanics of particles and systems (70-03) Two-body problems (70F05)

Review text

Proposition 1 of \textit{Principia} says that orbital motions have both the fixed plane property (FPP) and the area property (AP), and Newton's proof is based upon the impulse assumption (IA): an orbital motion can be represented as a limit of polygonal impulse motions. Newton takes IA for granted and it is the aim of this paper to consider the validity of that assumption. More precisely, the author considers two possible meanings of an ``orbital motion and the validity of Newton's proof in each case. If ``orbital means ``centripetal (a traditional view), then there is a gap in the argument: only a nontrivial analysis, using FPP, shows IA, and so Newton's argument is ultimately valid for AP but not for FPP. And if ``orbital means ``impulse limit (IA becomes a definition), then one can deduce both AP and FPP, but there appears another crucial question: ``How plentiful are these impulse motions? Are there enough of them to sustain Newton's subsequent study? The paper is completed by two sophisticated proofs which ``Newton could have given of both AP and FPP for orbital motions in the traditional sense.

Recommendations

• Kepler's area law in the \textit{Principia}: filling in some details in Newton's proof of Proposition 1.
• On newton's proof that inverse-square orbits must be conics
• Newton's \textit{Principia} and inverse-square orbits: The flaw reexamined
• Dismantling a centuries-old myth: Newton’s P r i n c i p i
• The importance of being equivalent: Newton's two models of one-body motion

Cited in

(13)

• Proposition II (Book I) of Newton's \(Principia\)
• Newton's mature dynamics and the Principia: A simplified solution to the Kepler problem
• Passage to the limit in Proposition I, Book I of Newton's \textit{Principia}.
• Kepler's area law in the \textit{Principia}: filling in some details in Newton's proof of Proposition 1.
• The importance of being equivalent: Newton's two models of one-body motion
• Newton's Polygon Model and the Second Order Fallacy
• The mathematical form of measurement and the argument for Proposition I in Newton's \textit{Principia}
• Polygons and Parabolas: Some Problems Concerning the Dynamics of Planetary Orbits*
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 139968 (Why is no real title available?)
• Mathematical models in Newton'sPrincipia: A new view of the ‘Newtonian Style’
• Newton's interpretation of Newton's second law
• The argument(s) for universal gravitation
• Force, deflection, and time: Proposition VI of Newton's \textit{Principia}

This page was built for publication: Newton's argument for Proposition 1 of the \textit{Principia}

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q1809896)