My modernization of Definition I in Newton's Principia

  • Thread starter PencilPusher
  • Start date
  • #1
PencilPusher
Give me your thoughts on my modernization of Definition I of Newton's Principia. Specifically bullet point 3.

Original TextMy Translation
The quantity of matter is the measure of the same, arising from its density and bulk conjunctly.Quantity of Mass arises from multiplication of density and volume.
M = Q x V(density x volume)
  1. Thus air of a double density, in a double space, is quadruple in quantity; in a triple space, sextuple in quantity.
  2. The same thing is to be understood of snow, and fine dust of powders, that are condensed by compression or liquefaction; and of all bodies that are by any causes whatever differently condensed.
  3. I have no regard in this place to a medium, if any such there is, that freely pervades the interstices between the parts of bodies.
  4. It is this quantity that I mean hereafter everywhere under the name of body or mass.
  5. And the same is known by the weight of each body; for it is proportional to the weight, as I have found by experiments on pendulums, very accurately made, which shall be shewn hereafter.
  1. Therefore, air with double the density and double the volume will have quadruple the mass; triple the density and triple the volume will have sextuple of the mass.
  2. Same thing will occur with snow or gas that is liquified or condensed by compression, or any other matter that is condensed by any means. (I am not fully following the sentence, but I assume he is stating that the mass will remain the same?)
  3. I am assuming that there is no material that is escaping out of the volume in question.
  4. This quantity is what I will be referring to as body or mass.
  5. Similarly, this applies to the weight of the body which is proportional to the mass? (W=Mxg). I found this via accurate experiments on pendulums, which will be shown later.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Um...you do know that the original was not in English, right?
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes dextercioby, Doc Al, berkeman and 2 others
  • #3
Vanadium 50 said:
Um...you do know that the original was not in English, right?
Quid est problema dude? :wink:
 
  • Haha
Likes DennisN and PeroK
  • #4
berkeman said:
Quid est problema dude? :wink:
 
  • Haha
Likes DennisN, Bystander and berkeman
  • #5
PencilPusher said:
Similarly, this applies to the weight of the body which is proportional to the mass? (W=Mxg). I found this via accurate experiments on pendulums, which will be shown later.
Please be sure to define all of your terms in your equations. What is this "x"?

Oh wait...

1696029921793.png
 
  • Haha
Likes dextercioby and PeroK
  • #6
berkeman said:
Oh wait...
Getting punchy?
 
  • Haha
Likes berkeman
  • #7
berkeman said:
Quid est problema dude?
Semper ubi sub ubi!
 
  • Wow
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes hmmm27, BillTre and berkeman
  • #8
Vanadium 50 said:
Um...you do know that the original was not in English, right?
Yep. It was in Latin. I am just reading the original translation for fun. It is hard to understand because it is old, I think it is 1729.
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK
  • #9
berkeman said:
Please be sure to define all of your terms in your equations. What is this "x"?

Oh wait...

View attachment 332805
Haha maybe I will find that proof later in his experiments with pendulums.
 
  • #10
Your #3 is less restrictive than the original.
Your #1 has an embarrissingly significant math error that makes it invalid.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
  • #11
If you haven't already, you might enjoy checking out S. Chandrashekhar's Newton's Principia for the Common Reader.
 
  • Informative
Likes PeroK
  • #13
PencilPusher said:
Yep. It was in Latin. I am just reading the original translation for fun. It is hard to understand because it is old, I think it is 1729.
1687. Newton was already dead in 1729.

Those old texts are hard to read and even harder to assess if you didn't have studied the subject really intensively beforehand. They used a completely different language, and I do not mean Latin.

"My modernization of ... Newton's Principia"

... is an extremely unfortunate thread title. Newton's book has been constantly modernized throughout the centuries, namely with every new generation studying it. It is what we now call the curriculum of mechanical physics. This means in return that every "improvement" - whether it is one or not - has already been made ever since. Moreover, such groundbreaking results like the Principia (or Euclid's Elements) are far more a historical document than a scientific treatise that needs "modernization". Hence, you can admit a lack of understanding, and I would be surprised if you hadn't those, but you can hardly "modernize" Newton.
 
  • Like
Likes Tom.G and Vanadium 50
  • #14
jtbell said:
Have you seen Cohen and Whitman's modern translation of the Principia?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0520290887/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I'm on the road right now, so I can't quote their version of Definition I from my copy.
This is excellent. I was looking for something exactly like that!
 
  • #15
fresh_42 said:
1687. Newton was already dead in 1729.

Those old texts are hard to read and even harder to assess if you didn't have studied the subject really intensively beforehand. They used a completely different language, and I do not mean Latin.

"My modernization of ... Newton's Principia"

... is an extremely unfortunate thread title. Newton's book has been constantly modernized throughout the centuries, namely with every new generation studying it. It is what we now call the curriculum of mechanical physics. This means in return that every "improvement" - whether it is one or not - has already been made ever since. Moreover, such groundbreaking results like the Principia (or Euclid's Elements) are far more a historical document than a scientific treatise that needs "modernization". Hence, you can admit a lack of understanding, and I would be surprised if you hadn't those, but you can hardly "modernize" Newton.
I agree, I think I went about it the wrong way. I am basically interested to read this original work just to understand how these theories were originally presented. I understand that modern books have perfected the interpretation of all the discoveries and can present them in clear and concise way. I am going to check out the suggested Cohen and Whitman's by jtbell.
 

FAQ: My modernization of Definition I in Newton's Principia

What is the primary goal of modernizing Definition I in Newton's Principia?

The primary goal of modernizing Definition I in Newton's Principia is to update the language and conceptual framework to make it more accessible and relevant to contemporary scientific understanding while preserving the original intent and rigor of Newton's work.

How does the modernized definition differ from Newton's original Definition I?

The modernized definition uses contemporary terminology and may incorporate advances in mathematics and physics that were not available in Newton's time. This includes clearer distinctions between concepts like mass and inertia, and the use of modern units and notation.

Why is it important to modernize historical scientific definitions?

Modernizing historical scientific definitions is important because it helps bridge the gap between historical and current scientific knowledge, making foundational concepts more comprehensible to today's students and researchers. It also ensures that the language used aligns with current scientific standards and practices.

What challenges are faced in modernizing such a foundational scientific text?

Challenges include maintaining the integrity and intent of the original text while updating the language and concepts. There is also the difficulty of ensuring that the modernization does not oversimplify or misrepresent Newton's original ideas and contributions.

How does the modernization impact the teaching and understanding of Newtonian physics?

The modernization can enhance the teaching and understanding of Newtonian physics by providing clearer and more relatable explanations of fundamental concepts. This can lead to a deeper and more intuitive grasp of the principles that underpin classical mechanics, benefiting both educators and students.

Similar threads

Back
Top