Thanks Red Badger. I was sure this had been posted before.
· List topics · post a topic · subscribe · Google ·
Posted on 01/22/2024 8:49:07 AM 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.
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 have 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 explains 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 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 muses – 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.
It never caught on because it is insignificant and picking of nits. Bodies in motion will tend to remain in motion without change unless influenced by an outside force. That may even be the medium they pass through. The interpretation changes nothing.
Thanks Red Badger. I was sure this had been posted before.
Ping
if Newton used math then yes...he was a racis’. all math is racis’! all except the math that proves that an X chromosome and a Y chromosome can be combined in an infinite number of ways. that math isn’t racis’.
ah...the same difference without defining which difference is the same. remember saying to my dad “it’s the same difference”. his response...”define WHICH difference is the same”. never ever said it again. he had a gift for making people explain themselves with pointed questions that popped a lot of bubbles.
Yes. There is no perfect vacuum. At the least there are hydrogen atoms to collide with.
Another semantics pothole is the difference between “use” and “utilize”.
I hear the talking heads for football talk about “utilizing a WR in the passing game”. Uhm, no, that’s how the WR’s are to be used.
The definition in this case for “utilize” is to have a WR doing something that is not expected or normal for their position. Maybe throwing a pass, or blocking a DE = which is not a normal function of the position.
Basically, you “use” a butter knife to spread mayo/butter/mustard, whatever on bread.
But you “utilize” a butter knife to tighten a flat head screw.
You’re still using the butter knife, but not necessarily in the manner it was designed.
Until we invent a warp bubble.
Absurdity...
The same type of moronic intellect that gave us the hockey stick intro to EOD climate panic...
Of course. Government bureaucrats and democrats, especially, can wave their magic pens and create new physics and ignore other physical laws.
Maybe you’re thinking of the piece on Euclid’s ‘fifth’...
What it actually says is that men can be pregnant.
Einstein’s theory of General Relativity modified Newton’s. The orbit of Mercury drifted slightly from Newton’s prediction. For many years astronomers predicted an inner planet , Vulcan , to explain it. Years of fruitless effort were spent trying to find it.
When Einstein did the math using his theory its prediction matched up with the orbit of Mercury as recorded. Later on the bending of light by the sun confirmed by an eclipse confirmed Einstein once again.
I thought the fifth was Beethoven’s.
/rimshot
Thanks!
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4206358/posts
I like to ask pro KJV advocates what Bible version did the disciplines use.
I get a lot of evasive answers including them asking me what version I use.
Ha..... that’s where my thoughts went as well.
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.