The moon-test in Newton's Principia: Accuracy of inverse-square law of universal gravitation

Communicated by J. D. North     

<Emphasis Type="Italic">Newton's Argument for Proposition 1 of the</Emphasis> Principia

The first proposition of the Principia records two fundamental properties of an orbital motion: the Fixed Plane Property (that the orbit lies in a fixed plane) and the Area Property (that the radius sweeps out equal areas in equal times). Taking at the start the traditional view, that by an orbital motion Newton means a centripetal motion – this is a motion ``continually deflected from the tangent toward a fixed center' – we describe two serious flaws in the Principia's argument for Proposition 1, an argument based on a polygonal impulse approximation. First, the persuasiveness of the argument depends crucially on the validity of the Impulse Assumption: that every centripetal motion can be represented as a limit of polygonal impulse motions. Yet Newton tacitly takes the Impulse Assumption for granted. The resulting gap in the argument for Proposition 1 is serious, for only a nontrivial analysis, involving the careful estimation of accumulating local errors, verifies the Impulse Assumption. Second, Newton's polygonal approximation scheme has an inherent and ultimately fatal disability: it does not establish nor can it be adapted to establish the Fixed Plane Property. Taking then a different view of what Newton means by an orbital motion – namely that an orbital motion is by definition a limit of polygonal impulse motions – we show in this case that polygonal approximation can be used to establish both the fixed plane and area properties without too much trouble, but that Newton's own argument still has flaws. Moreover, a crucial question, haunted by error accumulation and planarity problems, now arises: How plentiful are these differently defined orbital motions? Returning to the traditional view, that Newton's orbital motions are by definition centripetal motions, we go on to give three proofs of the Area Property which Newton ``could have given' – two using polygonal approximation and a third using curvature – as well as a proof of the Fixed Plane Property which he ``almost could have given.' (Received August 14, 2002) Published online March 26, 2003 Communicated by G. Smith     

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The contents of Scala Graduum Caloris are described, supplemented by unpublished material.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.     

Newton's solution of the one-body problem

Communicated by C. A. Wilson     

Geometrical constructions equivalent to non-linear algebraic transformations of the plane in Newton's early papers

Summary The theory of constructive formation of plane algebraic curves in Newton's writings is discussed in § 1: the apparatus by which Newton forms the curves, Newton's theorems on forming unicursal curves, his theory of conics, and his theory of (m, n) correspondence. Special Cremona plane and space transformations obtained by Newton's organic method are dealt with in § 2. The article ends with § 3, which shows two different directions in the theory of the constructive formation of plane algebraic curves in the XVIII-XIXth centuries. A synopsis is appended.Abbreviations MPN The Mathematical Papers of Isaac Newton, edited by D. T. Whiteside, Vols. 1–3, Cambridge, 1967–1969 - Hudson H. Hudson, Cremona Transformations in Plane and Space, Cambridge, 1927 - PT (abridged) Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 1665–1800 (abridged), London, 1809 - Andreev ₁ K. A. Andreev, On geometrical correspondences ... (in Russian), Moscow, 1879 - Andreev ₂ K. A. Andreev, On the Geometrical Formation of Plane Curves (in Russian), Kharkov, 1875     

The Integrability of Ovals: Newton's Lemma 28 and Its Counterexamples

Principia (Book 1, Sect. 6), Newton's Lemma 28 on the algebraic nonintegrability of ovals has had an unusually mixed reception. Beginning in 1691 with Jakob Bernoulli (who accepted the lemma) and Huygens and Leibniz (who rejected it and offered counterexamples), Lemma 28 has a history of eliciting seemingly contradictory reactions. In more recent times, D.T. Whiteside in 1974 gave an “unchallengeable counterexample,” while the mathematician V.I. Arnol'd in 1987 sided with Bernoulli and called Newton's argument an “astonishingly modern topological proof.” This disagreement mostly stems, we argue, from Newton's vague statement of the lemma. Indeed, we identify several different interpretations of Lemma 28, any one of which Newton may have been intending to assert, and we then test a number of proposed counterexamples to see which, if any, are true counterexamples to one or more of these versions of the lemma. Following this, we study Newton's argument for the lemma to see whether and where it fails to be convincing. In the end, our study of Newton's Lemma 28 provides an answer to the question, Who is right: Huygens, Leibniz, Whiteside and the others who reject the lemma, or Bernoulli, Arnol'd, and the others who accept it? (Received November 6, 2000)     

Newton's Easy Quadratures ``Omitted for the Sake of Brevity'

In the 1687 Principia, Newton gave a solution to the direct problem (given the orbit and center of force, find the central force) for a conic-section with a focal center of force (answer: a reciprocal square force) and for a spiral orbit with a polar center of force (answer: a reciprocal cube force). He did not, however, give solutions for the two corresponding inverse problems (given the force and center of force, find the orbit). He gave a cryptic solution to the inverse problem of a reciprocal cube force, but offered no solution for the reciprocal square force. Some take this omission as an indication that Newton could not solve the reciprocal square, for, they ask, why else would he not select this important problem? Others claim that ``it is child's play' for him, as evidenced by his 1671 catalogue of quadratures (tables of integrals). The answer to that question is obscured for all who attempt to work through Newton's published solution of the reciprocal cube force because it is done in the synthetic geometric style of the 1687 Principia rather than in the analytic algebraic style that Newton employed until 1671. In response to a request from David Gregory in 1694, however, Newton produced an analytic version of the body of the proof, but one which still had a geometric conclusion. Newton's charge is to find both ``the orbit' and ``the time in orbit.' In the determination of the dependence of the time on orbital position, t(r), Newton evaluated an integral of the form ∫dx/x <sup>n</sup> to calculate a finite algebraic equation for the area swept out as a function of the radius, but he did not write out the analytic expression for time t = t(r), even though he knew that the time t is proportional to that area. In the determination of the orbit, θ (r), Newton obtained an integral of the form ∫dx/√(1−x<sup>2</sup>) for the area that is proportional to the angle θ, an integral he had shown in his 1669 On Analysis by Infinite Equations to be equal to the arcsin(x). Since the solution must therefore contain a transcendental function, he knew that a finite algebraic solution for θ=θ(r) did not exist for ``the orbit' as it had for ``the time in orbit.' In contrast to these two solutions for the inverse cube force, however, it is not possible in the inverse square solution to generate a finite algebraic expression for either ``the orbit' or ``the time in orbit.' In fact, in Lemma 28, Newton offers a demonstration that the area of an ellipse cannot be given by a finite equation. I claim that the limitation of Lemma 28 forces Newton to reject the inverse square force as an example and to choose instead the reciprocal cube force as his example in Proposition 41. (Received August 14, 2002) Published online March 26, 2003 Communicated by G. Smith     

A New Way to Read Boyle's Works

An examination of British and French weights exchanged between the Royal Society and the Académie royale des sciences in the 1730s has led to a re‐assessment of the Elizabethan troy standards from the Exchequer and the suggestion that the mass of the troy pound has been revised upwards. In turn this is used to support the idea of an evolutionary relationship between the early bullion ounces of England, France, and the Low Countries.     

新型高速公路护栏清洗装置设计

新型高速公路护栏清洗装置结合护栏的结构特点而设计,以护栏本身为导轨。工作时,清洗装置通过槽轮直接安放在护栏上,由电机驱动在护栏上独立前进。抹布采用插补原理设计,毛刷采用尼龙制造。装置适应公路的波形梁护栏结构标准,在前进的过程中同时实现高压水洗,毛刷刷洗和抹布擦洗。