Posted on 02/20/2025 12:00:36 PM PST by Red Badger
When Isaac Newton inscribed onto parchment his now-famed laws of motion in 1687, he could have only hoped we'd be discussing them three centuries later.
Writing in Latin, Newton outlined three universal principles describing how the motion of objects is governed in our Universe, which have been translated, transcribed, discussed and debated at length.
But according to a philosopher of language and mathematics, we might have been interpreting Newton's precise wording of his first law of motion slightly wrong all along.
Virginia Tech philosopher Daniel Hoek wanted to "set the record straight" after discovering what he describes as a "clumsy mistranslation" in the original 1729 English translation of Newton's Latin Principia.
Newton's own copy of Principia with his hand-written corrections for the second edition, now housed in the Wren Library at Trinity College, Cambridge. (Isaac Newton/CC0/Wikimedia Commons) Based on this translation, countless academics and teachers have since interpreted Newton's first law of inertia to mean an object will continue moving in a straight line or remain at rest unless an outside force intervenes.
It's a description that works well until you appreciate external forces are constantly at work, something Newton would have surely considered in his wording.
Revisiting the archives, Hoek realized this common paraphrasing featured a misinterpretation that flew under the radar until 1999, when two scholars picked up on the translation of one Latin word that had been overlooked: quatenus, which means "insofar", not unless.
To Hoek, this makes all the difference. Rather than describing how an object maintains its momentum if no forces are impressed on it, Hoek says the new reading shows Newton meant that every change in a body's momentum – every jolt, dip, swerve, and spurt – is due to external forces.
"By putting that one forgotten word [insofar] back in place, [those scholars] restored one of the fundamental principles of physics to its original splendor," Hoek explained in a blog post describing his findings, published academically in a 2022 research paper.
However, that all-important correction never caught on. Even now it might struggle to gain traction against the weight of centuries of repetition.
"Some find my reading too wild and unconventional to take seriously," Hoek remarks. "Others think that it is so obviously correct that it is barely worth arguing for."
Ordinary folks might agree it sounds like semantics. And Hoek admits the reinterpretation hasn't and won't change physics. But carefully inspecting Newton's own writings clarifies what the pioneering mathematician was thinking at the time.
"A great deal of ink has been spilt on the question what the law of inertia is really for," explains Hoek, who was puzzled as a student by what Newton meant.
If we take the prevailing translation, of objects traveling in straight lines until a force compels them otherwise, then it raises the question: why would Newton write a law about bodies free of external forces when there is no such thing in our Universe; when gravity and friction are ever-present?
The International Space Station travels in a curved orbit due to Earth's gravity. (3DSculptor/Canva) "The whole point of the first law is to infer the existence of the force," George Smith, a philosopher at Tufts University and an expert in Newton's writings, told journalist Stephanie Pappas for Scientific American.
In fact, Newton gave three concrete examples to illustrate his first law of motion: the most insightful, according to Hoek, being a spinning top – that as we know, slows in a tightening spiral due to the friction of air.
"By giving this example," Hoek writes, "Newton explicitly shows us how the First Law, as he understands it, applies to accelerating bodies which are subject to forces – that is, it applies to bodies in the real world."
Hoek says this revised interpretation brings home one of Newton's most fundamental ideas that was utterly revolutionary at the time. That is, the planets, stars, and other heavenly bodies are all governed by the same physical laws as objects on Earth.
"Every change in speed and every tilt in direction," Hoek mused – from swarms of atoms to swirling galaxies – "is governed by Newton's First Law."
Making us all feel once again connected to the farthest reaches of space.
The paper has been published in the Philosophy of Science.
An earlier version of this article was published in September 2023.
Hoek must have been working on a government grant to have made this important. It does not change the meaning to me. Early child logic made it apparent that motion was sustained unless or even insofar as no other outside forces were imposed upon it. There are always outside forces upon an object so long as other masses surround it and even if it touches nothing in the vacuum of space. Some gravity acts upon all bodies, even “weightless” ones. It is just negligible for all practical purposes. Even a stable orbit eventually decays doesn’t it?
More significantly though:
Newton invented the cat door.
Newton had a Tuxedo cat.
I have a Tuxedo cat named TK and several cat doors.
Now THAT is significant. No?
From BRVAE AI:
Did Newton Invent the Cat Door?
The legend that Isaac Newton invented the cat door is widely circulated but lacks historical evidence. The idea of a cat door or cat hole predates Newton by centuries. For example, Chaucer’s “The Canterbury Tales,” written in the late 1300s, mentions a cat hole, indicating that such devices were already in use long before Newton’s time.
The story about Newton cutting two holes in his door, one for his cat and a smaller one for her kittens, is likely an urban legend. Two Newton biographers cite passages saying that Newton kept “neither cat nor dog in his chamber,” casting doubt on the veracity of the cat door story.
However, a member of Newton’s alma mater, Trinity College, reported this same story in his 1827 memoir, adding: “Whether this account be true or false, indisputably true is it that there are in the door to this day two plugged holes of the proper dimensions for the respective egresses of cat and kitten”.
Despite the lack of solid evidence, the legend persists, possibly because it highlights Newton’s brilliance and his attention to practical problems.
However, it is important to note that the invention of the cat door is not attributed to Newton based on historical records.
In summary, while the story of Newton inventing the cat door is popular, it is more likely an urban legend rather than a historical fact.
“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.”
― George Orwell, 1984
Well, prove he didn’t invent the cat door.
Having a hole for the cat and a smaller one for the kittens would be foolish since what fits the smaller door would also pass the larger door. Newton was no such fool. In that observation alone the critics of Sir Issac are proven wrong.
There was no mention of the Tuxedo cat but I’ll cut that one off at the pass since it can’t be proven he did not have such a cat either.
So. There.
Unless it changes the underlying equation, it’s a difference without a distinction.
The teacher was smiling about that, but if that happened today, the teacher would be arrested and the lawyers would descend like vultures.
I think she got paid by the word, and by how big a deal she can make out of a nothing burger. IOW, clickbait!
+1
“And none of those change meaning if ‘unless’ becomes ‘insofar.’”
Wrongo, FRiend. Of such things in the Academic World, Phds are won and lost.
Wow all these years my simple had assumed those two words were relatively innocuously interchangeable.
Some say tomato some say...
Elon Musk
“We’ve Been Misreading a Major Law of Physics For Almost 300 Years”
Is it the one that says I can’t just flap my arms and fly like a bird?
Historical revisionism at its finest?
A over-zealous Grammar Nazi.......................
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
