Newton and database
Published by admin February 6th, 2008 in NewtonWhen Kepler published his rule tying the radius of an orbit to its period astronomers thought that this R3/T2 = constant rule looked like number mysticism and no one used it. They continued to build tables to form their database. They knew how to work with tables. The rule would have disappeared and forgotten except that an astronomer called Thomas Streete tried to give it a try. He used the rule to compute the periods of Jupiter’s satellites and he realized that the rule improved the accuracy of his tables. He published his results in his astronomy textbook called Astronomia Carolina. This was the only practical and favorable use of Kepler’s rule and Streete gave Kepler full credit as its discoverer.
This book then fell into the hands of Newton. Since today Newton is viewed as a demi-god who discovered the law of Nature and formulated it as Newton’s laws it would be hard to imagine for modern readers the pre-mythological Newton as a typical Peripatetic Doctor of Philosophy laboring with the religious and Peripatetic dogma taught in Cambridge by religious priests.
Newton the struggling Peripatetic Doctor of Philosophy had ambitions to be the greatest world-builder the world has ever seen. A world-builder needs a unifying principle. This is how it works. World builders define the essence of the world then they enforce it by their authority to be the genuine and true essence of the world and then they have their disciples name this world by the sacred name of their masters. Newton knew the game perfectly well. Unfortunately he could not come up with a unifying principle. Newton lacked that unifying principle, that great idea which would be the basis of the Newtonian world. Newton was looking for force, or Newton’s Soul, that permeated the universe and explained all phenomena by unifying realms, astronomical and terrestrial.
Once Newton learned about Kepler’s rule R3T2 in Streete’s book he immediately recognized its potential. He knew he had the all encompassing principle he was looking for. Newton then wrote RRR::TT in two parts F=1/RR and F=R/TT and called it Newton’s laws. This is the greatest intellectual robbery in the history of mankind.
As you recognize this is the oldest trick in the rule book of scholasticism called derivation. Newton’s force is nothing but a label Newton invented to hide his theft of the rule discovered by Kepler. But Newton’s crime against science is not mere plagiarism. By making his label a quantity that he discovered, a quantity that can be measured, Newton reverted science to pre-Galilean times.
Kepler’s laws work only for two body interactions: Earth aroun sun; Moon around earth; Moon around Jupiter; Venus around sun.
Newton’s reformulation works for N-bodies. It gives corrections to Kepler’s laws where a 3rd body is involved: Earth around sun modified by Jupiter’s gravity.
So you really can’t say that Newton added nothing to Kepler.
Thanks for the comment. I believe that proposition III.13 where Newton computes “the action of Jupiter upon Saturn” is similar to the case you mention.
My point is that Newton always uses Kepler’s rule R3/T2=constant to make astronomical calculations. But he always expresses what he does with his own labels. These labels are written and then cancelled. They are not needed and they are not used in calculations.
Newton claims to compute “the action,” that is, Newtonian occult force, of Jupiter upon Saturn. He makes this claim because he writes Kepler’s rule in two parts F=1/R2 and F=R/T2 then combines them to recover the rule by eliminating his placeholder F.
In this proposition Newton applies rules of proportions to combine (or compound) the ratios of distances between Jupiter and Saturn and Sun, then applies Kepler’s rule without explicitly mentioning it.
Newton’s calculations are for Jupiter-Saturn conjuction so we have the alignment Sun, Jupiter, and Saturn.
Newton knows Jupiter-Saturn distance (J = 4) and he also knows Sun-Saturn distance (S = 9). So J/S = 4/9.
Newton computed in a previous proposition that the ratio of 1/R2 for J and S at equal distances was
J/S = 1/1067
Now Newton applies Kepler’s rule for the given distance
S^2/J^2 = 9^2/4^2 * 1/1067 = 1/211
So Newton does nothing more than applying Kepler’s rule. Newton uses Kepler’s rule to compute but he describes what he does with his own labels. There is nothing Newton adds to Kepler’s rule. Except that he labelled “1/R2″ “Force.”
But F on its own is meaningless. Newton cannot compute positions of planets by using F=1/R2 alone. This is not the correct proportionality. He must recover R3/T2 by eliminating F.
Kepler’s rule defines a density continuum. The Sun, Jupiter or Saturn or any “object” is not separate from this continuum. Humans perceive some parts of the continuum as “objects” because we take ourselves to be the measure. (And we can only perceive names or labels.) Anything denser than human body we call an “object.”
Consider the Earth. There is no discontinuity at the “surface” of the Earth. Humans happen to be living at a place in the continuum where the density of water, earth and air meet. There is no Earth.
Newton denies this all pervading density contiuum and imposes his religious doctrine of atomic materialism on the world and paints a picture of “objects” interacting with each other by way of Newton’s occult force. This force is a placeholder and does not even enter the computations. Only radius R and period T are used in computations. F is a placeholder and it cancels.
Thanks once again for the comment.
Of course, you miss the fact that Newton’s “scholastic trick” of derivation allowed him to use the same equation for things on Earth and things not on Earth.
Actually, you’re right about the fact that F is a placeholder and cancels. There’s a book on this subject “Concepts of Force” by Max Jammer, which I highly recommend to you.
William,
Thanks for the comment. You are right that Newton is usually credited with unification of terrestrial and celestial realms.
The way I see it Kepler’s Rule unifies the two realms not Newton’s force. (By the way, a nitpick: Newton did not use equations, he always worked with proportionalities.)
Cavendish experiment is a terrestrial experiment and it is an application of Kepler’s rule. Newton’s calculation of celestial quantities is also an application of Kepler’s rule. So Kepler’s rule unites the two realms. Newton’s force actually divides them. In Newtonism there are two official realms modelled by terrestrial mechanics and celestial mechanics. Both have their own set of rules.
If we take Kepler’s rule as fundamental then there are no two distinct mechanics but one rule explaining both.
Newton branded the universe on its own image. He designed and marketed a Newtonian world. In this world Newton’s Soul is the cause of all phenomena. This is not unification. This is branding.
Usually Newton’s so-called “Moon test” is given as the proof of his unification of the two realms. But Newton’s Moon test is also a pure application of Kepler’s rule. I would be willing to give Newton credit as the first person to apply Kepler’s rule to show the Moon obeyed Kepler’s rule. He may or may not be the first person to do that, but the point is that Newton claimed to use not Kepler’s rule but an occult quantity he claimed he discovered, namely, his force. Force is a placeholder that does not enter computations. Force has no place in science.
There is some more thoughts on unification of realms on this post.
Thanks again for the comment.
Hi Carl,
I remember reading that book a while back. It’s a nice historical review of force. Google books has a limited preview version of it.
My experience with history of the concept of force is that reading about it is good to get a historical perspective but does not help solve the question I am interested in. I am looking at a specific question: What is the relation of force to Kepler’s rule?
Kepler’s rule is a simple proportionality that ties the radius and period of an orbit. This rule does not contain a term for force. Therefore, to me, force does not have an observational basis. As you agreed, force is a placeholder. Physicists write it to save Newton’s auhority. If this is true then force has no place in astronomy.