Émilie Du Châtelet's interpretation of the laws of motion in the light of 18th century mechanics

Émilie Du Châtelet is well known for her French translation of Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. It is the first and only French translation of Newton's magnum opus. The complete work appeared in 1759 under the title Principes mathématiques de la philosophie naturelle, par feue Madame la Marquise Du Chastellet. Before translating Newton's Principia, Du Châtelet worked on her Institutions de physique. In this book she defended the Leibnizian concept of living forces – vis viva. This paper argues that both of these works were part of a critical transformation and consolidation of post-Newtonian mechanics in the early 18th century, beyond Newton and Leibniz. This will be shown by comparing Du Châtelet's translation of Newton's axioms with her own formulations of the laws of motion in light of Thomas Le Seur's and François Jacquier's Geneva edition which holds a special place among the several editions of the Principia that appeared in the early 18th century.     

Visiting Newton's atelier before the Principia, 1679–1684

The worksheets that presumably contained Newton's early development of the fundamental concepts in 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 Proposition 1 in Book 1 of the Principia that have been ignored in the past. A graphical construction associated with this proposition leads to a rapidly convergent method to obtain orbits for central forces, which elucidates how Newton may have have been led to formulate some of his most fundamental propositions in the Principia.     

Leonhard Euler's ‘anti-Newtonian’ theory of light

Leonhard Euler was the leading eighteenth-century critic of Isaac Newton's projectile theory of light. Euler's main criticisms of Newton's views are surveyed, and also his alternative account according to which light is a wave motion propagated through the aether. Important changes are identified as having occurred between 1744 and 1746 in Euler's thinking about the way in which a wave such as he supposed light to be is propagated through a medium. Paradoxically, in view of Euler's overtly anti-Newtonian stand, these amount to Euler abandoning his early, Malebranchian notions about the physical basis of wave propagation, in favour of the ideas set out by Newton in Book II of his Principia.     

Proposition 10, Book 2, in the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Principia</Emphasis>, revisited

In Proposition 10, Book 2 of the Principia, Newton applied his geometrical calculus and power series expansion to calculate motion in a resistive medium under the action of gravity. In the first edition of the Principia, however, he made an error in his treatment which lead to a faulty solution that was noticed by Johann Bernoulli and communicated to him while the second edition was already at the printer. This episode has been discussed in the past, and the source of Newton’s initial error, which Bernoulli was unable to find, has been clarified by Lagrange and is reviewed here. But there are also problems in Newton’s corrected version in the second edition of the Principia that have been ignored in the past, which are discussed in detail here.     

Newton,Gases, and Daltonian chemistry: The foundations of combination in definite proportion

This study deals with the relationship between Newton's gas model in the Principia (Book II, Proposition xxiii) and Dalton's theorizing. Dalton's first theory of mixed gases is an elegant extension of the Newtonian gas model which, in turn, led Dalton to a general model of chemical combination. The views on combination are contrasted with those of Arnold Thackray. Interestingly, the model of combination was knowingly based on a falsified theory.     

Different shades of Newton: Herman Boerhaave on Newton mathematicus,philosophus, and optico-chemicus

In this paper I will probe into Herman Boerhaave's (1668–1738) appropriation of Isaac Newton's natural philosophy. It will be shown that Newton's work served multiple purposes in Boerhaave's oeuvre, for he appropriated Newton's work differently in different contexts and in different episodes in his career. Three important episodes in, and contexts of, Boerhaave's appropriation of Newton's natural philosophical ideas and methods will be considered: 1710–11, the time of his often neglected lectures on the place of physics in medicine; 1715, when he delivered his most famous rectorial address; and, finally, 1731/2, in publishing his Elementa chemiae. Along the way, I will spell out the implications of Boerhaave's case for our understanding of the reception, or use, of Newton's ideas more generally.     

Borelli’s edition of books V–VII of Apollonius’s Conics,and Lemma 12 in Newton’s Principia

To solve the direct problem of central forces when the trajectory is an ellipse and the force is directed to its centre, Newton made use of the famous Lemma 12 (Principia, I, sect. II) that was later recognized equivalent to proposition 31 of book VII of Apollonius’s Conics. In this paper, in which we look for Newton’s possible sources for Lemma 12, we compare Apollonius’s original proof, as edited by Borelli, with those of other authors, including that given by Newton himself. Moreover, after having retraced its editorial history, we evaluate the dissemination of Borelli's edition of books V-VII of Apollonius’s Conics before the printing of the Principia.

     

Poinsinet's Edition of the Naturalis historia (1771–1782) and the Revival of Pliny in the Sciences of the Enlightenment

This paper analyses the revival of Pliny's Naturalis historia within the scientific culture of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, focusing on a French effort to produce an edition with annotations by scientists and scholars. Between the Renaissance and the early eighteenth century, the Naturalis historia had declined in scientific importance. Increasingly, it was relegated to the humanities, as we demonstrate with a review of editions. For a variety of reasons, however, scientific interest in the Naturalis historia grew in the second half of the eighteenth century. Epitomizing this interest was a plan for a scientifically annotated, Latin-French edition of the Naturalis historia. Initially coordinated by the French governmental minister Malesherbes in the 1750s, the edition was imperfectly realized by Poinsinet a few decades later. It was intended to rival two of the period's other distinguished multi-volume books of knowledge, Diderot and D'Alembert's Encyclopédie and Buffon's Histoire naturelle, to which we compare it. Besides narrating the scientific revival of the Historia naturalis during this period, we examine its causes and the factors contributing to its end in the first half of the nineteenth century.     

Newton's Contribution to the Science of Heat

The contents of Scala Graduum Caloris are described, supplemented by unpublished material. Both temperature measurements by his linseed oil thermometer and those based upon his law of cooling are shown to be reasonably accurate to 300°C, but above that value they are much too low. The apparent agreement and the deviation are explained by the differences between the assumptions that Newton made in deriving his law of cooling and the conditions in which he used it. Newton's attempts to link terrestrial and celestial science in applications in the Principia are shown to fail from his confounding the concepts of temperature, heat and radiant intensity and his ignorance of most factors affecting the temperature rise of irradiated materials. Other comments on varied aspects of heat, mainly published in the Queries, are set out and analysed. His originality is assessed.     

Two kinds of modification theory of light: Some new observations on the Newton-Hooke controversy of 1672 concerning the nature of light

It has not been sufficiently emphasized that there existed two kinds of modification theory of colours, Aristotle's modification theory and Descartes-Hook's modification theory. This seems to have caused some confusion in the interpretation of the optical controversy between Newton and Hooke in 1672. The aim of the present paper is to prove that these two kinds of modification theory really coexisted, and on that basis to present a new interpretation of the optical controversy of 1672. The characteristics and the historical role of each of these theories will be described. Newton's colour theory was formed under the influence of Aristotle's modification theory, which had been disseminated through the work of an English Gassendist, Walter Charleton. Newton's optical theories were created not only under the influence of Descartes, as we have been often told, but also under the conspicuous influence of corpuscular philosophers.     

Varignon ou la théorie du mouvement des projectiles ‘comprise en une Proposition générale

Cet article a pour objet de montrer la nouveauté du traitement varignonien du mouvement des projectiles dans les milieux résistants par rapport au traitement de ce problème présenté entre autres par Newton dans les Principia. Aussi, après avoir analysé cursivement différentes Propositions du Livre II des Principia, nous étudierons plus spécialement, dans les Mémoires présentés par Varignon à l'Académie Royale des Sciences entre 1707 et 1711, la mise en place de l'expression d'une ‘Proposition générale’. Nous montrerons ensuite sur quelques cas particuliers en quel sens on peut dire que l'étude du mouvement des projectiles dans les milieux résistants se réduit alors, pour l'essentiel, à de simples questions d'intégration et de différentiation.     

Rome and Theistic Evolutionism: The Hidden Strategies behind the ‘Dorlodot Affair’, 1920–1926

In 1918, Henry de Dorlodot—priest, theologian, and professor of geology at the University of Louvain (Belgium)—published Le Darwinisme au point de vue de l'Orthodoxie Catholique (translated as Darwinism and Catholic Thought) in which he defended a reconciliation between evolutionary theory and Catholicism with his own particular kind of theistic evolutionism. He subsequently announced a second volume in which he would extend his conclusions to the origin of Man. Traditionalist circles in Rome reacted vehemently. Operating through the Pontifical Biblical Commission, they tried to force Dorlodot to withdraw his book and to publicly disown his ideas by threatening him with an official condemnation, a strategy that had been used against Catholic evolutionists since the late nineteenth century. The archival material on the ‘Dorlodot affair’ shows how this policy ‘worked’ in the early stages of the twentieth century but also how it would eventually reach the end of its logic. The growing popularity of theistic evolutionism among Catholic intellectuals, combined with Dorlodot's refusal to pull back amidst threats, made certain that the traditionalists did not get their way completely, and the affair ended in an uncomfortable status quo. Dorlodot did not receive the official condemnation that had been threatened, nor did he withdraw his theories, although he stopped short on publishing on the subject. With the decline of the traditionalists’ power and authority, the policy of denunciation towards evolutionists made way for a growing tolerance. The ‘Dorlodot affair’—which occurred in a pivotal era in the history of the Church—can be seen as exemplary with regards to the changing attitude of the Roman authorities towards evolutionism in the first half of the twentieth century.     

The Newtonian Myth

I examine Popper’s claims about Newton’s use of induction in Principia with the actual contents of Principia and draw two conclusions. Firstly, in common with most other philosophers of his generation, it appears that Popper had very little acquaintance with the contents and methodological complexities of Principia beyond what was in the famous General Scholium. Secondly Popper’s ideas about induction were less sophisticated than those of Newton, who recognised that it did not provide logical proofs of the results obtained using it, because of the possibilities of later, contrary evidence. I also trace the historical background to commonplace misconceptions about Newton’s method.     

Celestial chaos: The new logics of theory-testing in orbital dynamics

I explore how the nature, scope, and limits of the knowledge obtained in orbital dynamics has changed in recent years. Innovations in the design of spacecraft trajectories, as well as in astronomy, have led to new logics of theory-testing—that is, new research methodologies—in orbital dynamics. These methodologies—which combine resonance overlap theories, numerical experiments, and the implementation of space missions—were developed in response to the discovery of chaotic dynamical systems in our solar system. In the past few decades, they have replaced the methodology that dominated orbital research in the centuries following Newton's Principia. As a result, the kind of knowledge achieved by orbital research has changed: we can know how orbiting bodies in chaotic systems behave, but only over sufficiently short time scales; and we can reliably measure those temporal limitations, using Lyapunov time.     

Structural correspondence between nucleolus- and sphere-organizing regions of the lampbrush chromosomes and secondary constrictions of the mitotic chromosomes

Riassunto Le regioni nucleolo-e sfera-organizzatrici dei «lampbrush chromosomes» diTriturus alpestris apuanus corrispondono a costrizioni secondarie presenti sui rispettivi cromosomi mitotici. Questo dato ripropone l'interesse per lo studio dell'origine e del significato delle sfere negli ovociti in accrescimento.

---

---

With financial support by C.N.R., Rome.