共查询到7条相似文献,搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
Naoki Osada 《Archive for History of Exact Sciences》2013,67(4):457-476
In Of Quadrature by Ordinates (1695), Isaac Newton tried two methods for obtaining the Newton–Cotes formulae. The first method is extrapolation and the second one is the method of undetermined coefficients using the quadrature of monomials. The first method provides $n$ -ordinate Newton–Cotes formulae only for cases in which $n=3,4$ and 5. However this method provides another important formulae if the ratios of errors are corrected. It is proved that the second method is correct and provides the Newton–Cotes formulae. Present significance of each of the methods is given. 相似文献
2.
J. A. Ruffner 《Archive for History of Exact Sciences》2012,66(3):241-264
The widely accepted supposition that Newton’s De gravitatione was written in 1684/5 just before composing the Principia is examined. The basis for this determination has serious difficulties starting with the failure to examine the numerical
estimates for the resistance of aether. The estimated range is not nearly nil as claimed but comparable with air at or near
the earth’s surface. Moreover, the evidence provided most likely stems from experiments by Boyle, Hooke, and others in the
1660s and does not use evidence available in the late 1684. The document supports Newton’s contention that the aether medium
incorporates very large voids thereby proving that body and space differ but does by no means completely reject its corporeal
nature or eliminate its resistance. Newton’s use of the term inertia provides no conclusive evidence for a late date as often claimed and his definition of gravitas is difficult to reconcile with a late one. 相似文献
3.
Victor Joseph Di Fate 《Studies in history and philosophy of science》2011,42(1):28-36
Recently, some Newton scholars have argued that Newton is an empiricist about metaphysics—that ideally, he wants to let advances in physical theory resolve either some or all metaphysical issues. But while proponents of this interpretation are using ‘metaphysics’ in a very broad sense, to include the ‘principles that enable our knowledge of natural phenomena’, attention has thus far been focused on Newton’s approach to ontological, not epistemological or methodological, issues. In this essay, I therefore consider whether Newton wants to let physical theory bear on the very ‘principles that enable our knowledge’. By examining two kinds of argument in the Principia, I contend that Newton can be considered a methodological empiricist in a substantial respect. I also argue, however, that he cannot be a ‘radical empiricist’—that he does not and cannot convert all methodological issues into empirical issues. 相似文献
5.
6.
7.
Bruce Pourciau 《Archive for History of Exact Sciences》2009,63(2):129-167
After preparing the way with comments on evanescent quantities and then Newton’s interpretation of his second law, this study of Proposition II (Book I)— Proposition II Every body that moves in some curved line described in a plane and, by a radius drawn to a point, either unmoving or moving uniformly forward with a rectilinear motion, describes areas around that point proportional to the times, is urged by a centripetal force tending toward that same point. —asks and answers the following questions: When does a version of Proposition II first appear in Newton’s work? What revisions bring that initial version to the final form in the 1726 Principia? What, exactly, does this proposition assert? In particular, what does Newton mean by the motion of a body “urged by a centripetal force”? Does it assert a true mathematical claim? If not, what revision makes it true? Does the demonstration of Proposition II persuade? Is it as convincing, for example, as the most convincing arguments of the Principia? If not, what revisions would make the demonstration more persuasive? What is the importance of Proposition II, to the physics of Book III and the mathematics of Book I? 相似文献