Re: Origin of Newton story - Minnesota Technolog?

spintronic <spintronic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 8, 6:10 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 7, 11:21 am, spintronic <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Do you think that dissasociating the analogy from Newton devaluates
its logic?

I can well believe YOU would suggest something like this. Not Newton,
though.


How little you know.

Quote

"Gravity explains the motions of the planets,
but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion.
God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

It is the start of a long and often misunderstood story.
Newton believed that the orderly motions
of the planets in the solar system
could only be explained by god setting them on their courses,
and correcting them occasionally.
He had just discovered perturbation theory,
with the disastrous result that the so called 'secular terms'
would soon destroy the orderly motions of the planets.
Newton thought that divine intervention every now and then
would be required to set them on their proper course again.
He thought this to be a positive aspect of his theory,
and contrasted it with the 'godless' theories of Descartes
in which no divine intervention was required.
Others regarded it of course as fudging
to 'solve' a technical problem Newton could't solve.

Alas, Lagrange tamed the secular terms,
reducing the solar system to clockwork,
and Laplace codified the godless Newtonian universe
in his monumental book on the 'Systeme du Monde'

Upon presentation of his magnum opus to Napoleon
(who was aware of the scientific controversy)
he got the question where god was in his system of the world.
"Mais où est Dieu dans tout cela ?"

The proud answer:
"Sire, je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là!"
(Sire, I did not need that hypothesis!)
is often misunderstood.
Laplace was saying that his theory could stand by itself,
and had no need of devine intervention to save the phenomena.

It is often understood though
as an agressive declaration of atheism.

Jan



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: An astronomers view of mechanics
    ... the false approach by Newton using a hypothetical observer on the Sun ... accepts that it is the Sun that is the body in the Solar System that ... You seem to find the motions of the Solar System dull ... To working positional astronomers - it would be a bad joke. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Copernican heliocentricity
    ... When assembled into time lapse footage, the motions look like this - ... overtaking the slower moving outer planets and that is how Copernicus ... always seen direct," NEWTON ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: An astronomers view of mechanics
    ... the false approach by Newton using a hypothetical observer on the Sun ... accepts that it is the Sun that is the body in the Solar System that ... You seem to find the motions of the Solar System dull ... To working positional astronomers - it would be a bad joke. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Mercury approaches overtaking point
    ... It must be horrible to make judgements about people when it is much ... splitting the Earth's motions into axial and orbital,accounting for the ... Find Newton correct and you spend all your time making wothless ... notion that all the planets of the solar system orbit around a central star ...
    (uk.sci.astronomy)
  • Re: Re-aligning astronomical principles
    ... >>The whole point of Copernican/Keplerian heliocentricity is dropping the ... >>stellar background reference in which the plotted motions of the ... > not because of anything Newton said or did, but because it is the only ... >>contemplative astronomy; while to say by what circleand lines correct ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading