PDA

View Full Version : Newton Stole First 2 Laws of Motion From Galileo!

Galileo
15th January 2009, 03:59 PM
Newton Stole First 2 Laws of Motion From Galileo!

Not only that, Newton also stole the first 2 corollaries as well.

"Hitherto I have laid down such principles as have been received by mathematicians, and are confirmed by abundance of experiment. By the first two Laws and the first two Corollaries, Galileo discovered that the descent of bodies observed the duplicate ratio of the time, and that the motion of projectiles was in the curve of a parabola; experience agreeing with both, unless so far as these motions are a little retarded by the resistance of the air."

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/axioms.htm

GALILEO SPEAKS. THIS IS THE YEAR OF GALILEI. I AM GALILEO. I HAVE BEEN SENT AS AN AMBASSADOR FROM HEAVEN.

Galileo > Newton.

dudalb
15th January 2009, 04:06 PM
Newton Stole First 2 Laws of Motion From Galileo!

Not only that, Newton also stole the first 2 corollaries as well.

"Hitherto I have laid down such principles as have been received by mathematicians, and are confirmed by abundance of experiment. By the first two Laws and the first two Corollaries, Galileo discovered that the descent of bodies observed the duplicate ratio of the time, and that the motion of projectiles was in the curve of a parabola; experience agreeing with both, unless so far as these motions are a little retarded by the resistance of the air."

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/axioms.htm

GALILEO SPEAKS. THIS IS THE YEAR OF GALILEI. I AM GALILEO. I HAVE BEEN SENT AS AN AMBASSADOR FROM HEAVEN.

Galileo > Newton.

:eye-poppi:eye-poppi:eye-poppi:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

Galileo has finally lost it.
(The poster, not the scientest.

Galileo
15th January 2009, 04:13 PM
:eye-poppi:eye-poppi:eye-poppi:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

Galileo has finally lost it.
(The poster, not the scientest.

Evidence please. The thread title makes an assertion, which you have not even attempted to refute. This forum is supposed to be a debate about ideas, not personalities. You have no idea what someone may have done with DNA obtained from Galileo's tomb or Galileo's finger. The possibility of cloning exists.

Horatius
15th January 2009, 04:21 PM

"Hitherto I have laid down such principles as have been received by mathematicians, and are confirmed by abundance of experiment. By the first two Laws and the first two Corollaries, Galileo discovered that the descent of bodies observed the duplicate ratio of the time, and that the motion of projectiles was in the curve of a parabola; experience agreeing with both, unless so far as these motions are a little retarded by the resistance of the air."

Uhm, no, he's explaining how his new mathematical theory of motion can explain the observational results reported by Galileo.

Take a ball of mass "m", drop it towards an Earth of Mass "M".

Newton tells us that F=ma, that is, the F force of gravity, will produce an acceleration "a" of the mass "m".

Newton also tells us that the force of gravity F = (GMm)/(r^2)

Thus, we have: F= ma = (GMm)/(r^2). By basic algebra, the "m" term drops out of each side, so we have a = (GM)/(r^2).

This means that, according to Newton's theory, the acceleration due to gravity is not dependent on the mass "m" of the object dropped...which is what Galileo observed.

Hence, Newton's above comment.

Galileo
15th January 2009, 04:29 PM
Uhm, no, he's explaining how his new mathematical theory of motion can explain the observational results reported by Galileo.

Take a ball of mass "m", drop it towards an Earth of Mass "M".

Newton tells us that F=ma, that is, the F force of gravity, will produce an acceleration "a" of the mass "m".

Newton also tells us that the force of gravity F = (GMm)/(r^2)

Thus, we have: F= ma = (GMm)/(r^2). By basic algebra, the "m" term drops out of each side, so we have a = (GM)/(r^2).

This means that, according to Newton's theory, the acceleration due to gravity is not dependent on the mass "m" of the object dropped...which is what Galileo observed.

Hence, Newton's above comment.

wrongola. Newton says that Galileo used the two laws of motion and two corollaries of motion to obtain his results. Hence Galileo discovered those laws.

Newton was notorious for not crediting others for their work, but with the great Galilei he made an exception. Newton went so far as to blot out the names of Descartes, Hooke, and Liebnitz from his manuscripts.

fuelair
15th January 2009, 04:33 PM
wrongola. Newton says that Galileo used the two laws of motion and two corollaries of motion to obtain his results. Hence Galileo discovered those laws.

Newton was notorious for not crediting others for their work, but with the great Galilei he made an exception. Newton went so far as to blot out the names of Descartes, Hooke, and Liebnitz from his manuscripts.
Yawn.

Galileo
15th January 2009, 04:35 PM
Yawn.

non responsive.

IMST
15th January 2009, 04:40 PM
non responsive.

Aren't you supposed to jump out of your chair and shout "objection" before you say that?

Subduction Zone
15th January 2009, 04:41 PM
Actually Newton's law says that objects of different weights will drop at different speeds. The thing is that the mass of the Earth is so much greater than anything that you would drop the difference disappears in the uncertainty of the equation. On another site I made this point and to prove it I took the two different objects to an extreme and dropped the sun on the Earth. For more typical items that you would actually drop the difference does not appear until past the twentieth digit after the decimal point (actually we used a sponge and a rock and it was the 24th place past the decimal point!). So here Newton outranks Galileo, in a simple case they have the same numbers, with massive objects you must use Newton.

athon
15th January 2009, 05:00 PM
wrongola. Newton says that Galileo used the two laws of motion and two corollaries of motion to obtain his results. Hence Galileo discovered those laws.

Newton was notorious for not crediting others for their work, but with the great Galilei he made an exception. Newton went so far as to blot out the names of Descartes, Hooke, and Liebnitz from his manuscripts.

Galileo would never say 'wrongola'. He just wouldn't.

He would also understand how cloning works. Because he's smart. And, well, you're just not.

Oh, and given that you seriously didn't get Horatio's post, or the fact that in the very quote you provided Newton said he has outlined the principles describing what Galileo had observed through experiments. That's kind of the whole point. For somebody who thinks they are the reincarnation of Galileo, I would have thought you might at least be able to read your own quotes.

Maybe if you cloned Newton we'd have a decent debate on our hands. Nothing to see here, folks.

Athon

Galileo
15th January 2009, 05:05 PM
Actually Newton's law says that objects of different weights will drop at different speeds. The thing is that the mass of the Earth is so much greater than anything that you would drop the difference disappears in the uncertainty of the equation. On another site I made this point and to prove it I took the two different objects to an extreme and dropped the sun on the Earth. For more typical items that you would actually drop the difference does not appear until past the twentieth digit after the decimal point (actually we used a sponge and a rock and it was the 24th place past the decimal point!). So here Newton outranks Galileo, in a simple case they have the same numbers, with massive objects you must use Newton.

You may believe that. Newton certainly didn't. Newton says that Galileo used 2 laws of motion and 2 corollaries of those laws to figure stuff out.

Note that Newton does not ascribe the inverse square law to Galileo because Galileo did not know that one (although he suspected it, based on his speculations about Plato & the planets). Newton stole the inverse square law from Robert Hooke.

Galileo
15th January 2009, 05:10 PM
Galileo would never say 'wrongola'. He just wouldn't.

He would also understand how cloning works. Because he's smart. And, well, you're just not.

Oh, and given that you seriously didn't get Horatio's post, or the fact that in the very quote you provided Newton said he has outlined the principles describing what Galileo had observed through experiments. That's kind of the whole point. For somebody who thinks they are the reincarnation of Galileo, I would have thought you might at least be able to read your own quotes.

Maybe if you cloned Newton we'd have a decent debate on our hands. Nothing to see here, folks.

Athon

wrong-ola!

technoextreme
15th January 2009, 05:13 PM
Aren't you supposed to jump out of your chair and shout "objection" before you say that?
t7cNO5oB5MI&feature=related

Perpetual Student
15th January 2009, 05:14 PM
Actually Newton's law says that objects of different weights will drop at different speeds. The thing is that the mass of the Earth is so much greater than anything that you would drop the difference disappears in the uncertainty of the equation. On another site I made this point and to prove it I took the two different objects to an extreme and dropped the sun on the Earth. For more typical items that you would actually drop the difference does not appear until past the twentieth digit after the decimal point (actually we used a sponge and a rock and it was the 24th place past the decimal point!). So here Newton outranks Galileo, in a simple case they have the same numbers, with massive objects you must use Newton.

I believe that statement is utterly false!

Subduction Zone
15th January 2009, 05:19 PM
I believe that statement is utterly false!

That is because you forgot about the motion of the Earth towards whatever object was dropped. As I said, and it is fairly obvious without using the formula, the amount the Earth moves towards a typical dropped object is undetectable, but it is still a "real" value mathematically. The rate of acceleration of the object towards the Earth is the same regardless of mass. But the acceleration of Earth towards another object varies on the mass of the object. It is all within Newton's law.

Perpetual Student
15th January 2009, 05:32 PM
That is because you forgot about the motion of the Earth towards whatever object was dropped. As I said, and it is fairly obvious without using the formula, the amount the Earth moves towards a typical dropped object is undetectable, but it is still a "real" value mathematically. The rate of acceleration of the object towards the Earth is the same regardless of mass. But the acceleration of Earth towards another object varies on the mass of the object. It is all within Newton's law.

Got it! But the acceleration experienced by any two objects falling towards the earth is the same, right?

Subduction Zone
15th January 2009, 05:39 PM
Got it! But the acceleration experienced by any two objects falling towards the earth is the same, right?

Yes, exactly. The acceleration of the Earth towards the object is so small that it can be ignored until you get to an object the size of a large asteroid, and even then it is barely detectable. Of course the acceleration of the Earth towards the Moon is a well documented and observed phenomenon. Something covered by Newton's law but not by Galileo. Which is why I say that Newton trumps Galileo.

Reality Check
15th January 2009, 06:39 PM

"Hitherto I have laid down such principles as have been received by mathematicians, and are confirmed by abundance of experiment. By the first two Laws and the first two Corollaries, Galileo discovered that the descent of bodies observed the duplicate ratio of the time, and that the motion of projectiles was in the curve of a parabola; experience agreeing with both, unless so far as these motions are a little retarded by the resistance of the air."

"Galileo discovered ..." is definitely referring to Galileo's experimental work.

Thus your assertion depends on what Newton mean with "By the first two Laws and the first two Corollaries, " prefixing that statement. I can think of a few interpretations:

Galileo's discoveries were because the first 2 laws and first two corollaries existed but had not yet been formulated by Newton.
Galileo's experiments were tests of the first 2 laws and first two corollaries which he had already formulated.
Galileo's experiments were tests of the first 2 laws and first two corollaries and he formulated them later.
The presence of a comma between the 2 phrases suggests the first interpretation. That is: Galileo did experiments that were governed by the first 2 laws and first two corollaries and got the expected results.

If Newton had mentioned where Galileo had published the equivalent of the first 2 laws and first two corollaries then options 2 or 3 are more likely.

Perhaps you can provide the citation that Newton seems to have forgotten?

Horatius
15th January 2009, 06:56 PM
"Galileo discovered ..." is definitely referring to Galileo's experimental work.

Thus your assertion depends on what Newton mean with "By the first two Laws and the first two Corollaries, " prefixing that statement. I can think of a few interpretations:

Galileo's discoveries were because the first 2 laws and first two corollaries existed but had not yet been formulated by Newton.
Galileo's experiments were tests of the first 2 laws and first two corollaries which he had already formulated.
Galileo's experiments were tests of the first 2 laws and first two corollaries and he formulated them later.
The presence of a comma between the 2 phrases suggests the first interpretation. That is: Galileo did experiments that were governed by the first 2 laws and first two corollaries and got the expected results.

If Newton had mentioned where Galileo had published the equivalent of the first 2 laws and first two corollaries then options 2 or 3 are more likely.

Perhaps you can provide the citation that Newton seems to have forgotten?

I hope you achieve a better result than I did, but I doubt you will.

Sigh.

athon
15th January 2009, 07:05 PM
wrong-ola!

Yup. When you have nothing else to say, yell to make it clear. ;)

Seriously, have you really ever studied science history? Or are you just making this up on the fly?

Athon

athon
15th January 2009, 07:08 PM
"Galileo discovered ..." is definitely referring to Galileo's experimental work.

Thus your assertion depends on what Newton mean with "By the first two Laws and the first two Corollaries, " prefixing that statement. I can think of a few interpretations:

Galileo's discoveries were because the first 2 laws and first two corollaries existed but had not yet been formulated by Newton.
Galileo's experiments were tests of the first 2 laws and first two corollaries which he had already formulated.
Galileo's experiments were tests of the first 2 laws and first two corollaries and he formulated them later.

The presence of a comma between the 2 phrases suggests the first interpretation. That is: Galileo did experiments that were governed by the first 2 laws and first two corollaries and got the expected results.

If Newton had mentioned where Galileo had published the equivalent of the first 2 laws and first two corollaries then options 2 or 3 are more likely.

Perhaps you can provide the citation that Newton seems to have forgotten?

I think the statement Newton made was fairly clear. He provided the principles, or fundamental explanations, behind what Galileo (and others since) had observed by experiment. There isn't anything controversial in it - Newton did the maths that explains why Galileo saw this happen.

The Galileo in this thread is fishing for an argument that doesn't exist.

Athon

Wowbagger
15th January 2009, 07:08 PM
Does this mean that Albert Einstein stole Relativity from Albert Michelson and Edward Morley? Because, the formulas developed by Einstein were based on Michelson's and Morley's experimental discovery that the speed of light is constant.

Horatius
15th January 2009, 07:21 PM
Does this mean that Albert Einstein stole Relativity from Albert Michelson and Edward Morley? Because, the formulas developed by Einstein were based on Michelson's and Morley's experimental discovery that the speed of light is constant.

We'll have to wait for a poster named "Michelson" to post before we can be sure.

TX50
15th January 2009, 07:44 PM
Arguing based on the position of a comma in an English translation isn't very
convincing. Newton actually wrote (in the 1687 edition):

"Per leges duas primas & Corollaria duo prima adinvenit Galilaeus
descensum gravium esse in duplicata ratione temporis, & motum projectilium
fieri in Parabola, conspirante experientia, [...]"

You can translate "per +acc." there as "by", "through", "by means of" or
even "in accordance with".

Newton also alludes to Galileo's previous work on motion in a couple of other
places in the Principia. There's no denying that Galileo had already at
least touched on the principles embodied in the first two Newtonian laws.

Galileo kept lab notes starting in 1602 and published his work on motion in
Book 3 of the "Discorsi e dimostrazione matematiche intorno a due nuove
scienze" in 1638.

Galileo's first law of motion says that freely falling bodies accelerate at a
constant speed, regardless of their weight, and that the distance they cover
is proportional to the square of the time elapsed during their fall. This is
exactly what Newton's first and second laws imply too.

Galileo's second law of motion rests on the realization that you can combine
forces in two directions, which is what Newton's 1st and 2nd Corollaries
concern themselves with.

But since Newton freely acknowledges Galileo's previous work how can you
possibly say that he "stole" it!?

Perpetual Student
15th January 2009, 08:09 PM
Does this mean that Albert Einstein stole Relativity from Albert Michelson and Edward Morley? Because, the formulas developed by Einstein were based on Michelson's and Morley's experimental discovery that the speed of light is constant.

No, some claim he had no knowledge of the MM experiment, but a detractor could claim he hijacked the Lorentz transformation in the same sense Newton used Galileo's findings.

Cuddles
16th January 2009, 08:19 AM
Newton totally ripped off REO Speedwagon.

That aside, I'm fairly sure I've heard of some famous scientist saying something about standing on the shoulders of giants. Newton didn't steal anything from Galileo, he simply built on top of Galileo's work, just as Galileo built on the work of those before him, and those since have built on top of Newton's. That's not stealing, it's science.

I should probably add a disclaimer that of course stealing ideas does happen sometimes among scientists. Newton is well known to have been extremely arrogant and used his influence to suppress those who disagreed with him. The question of whether he plagarised calculus from Leibnitz still hasn't been answered conclusively, but it's certainly possible that he did. However, one person we can be absolutely confident he never stole from is Galileo, who was dead.

TX50
17th January 2009, 10:56 AM
That aside, I'm fairly sure I've heard of some famous scientist saying something about standing on the shoulders of giants...

It's speculated by some that the line about standing "on the shoulders of
giants" was actually a dig at Robert Hooke's physical stature.

The 17th century flame war between Newton and Leibniz over who invented
calculus is fascinating. There was even "sock puppets" involved! And all done
in that excruciatingly polite 17th century style. Nothing ever changes, it
seems (except the politeness). :rolleyes:

Bell
17th January 2009, 11:33 AM
GALILEO SPEAKS. THIS IS THE YEAR OF GALILEI. I AM GALILEO. I HAVE BEEN SENT AS AN AMBASSADOR FROM HEAVEN.

Galileo > Newton.

But what if 1906 was the year of Galilei? And you were sent as an ambassador to San Fransisco?

Earthborn
17th January 2009, 12:43 PM
The OP has it wrong. Newton clearly states in his first law of motion that he thinks things tend to move in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force. This was a relatively novel idea, and the direct opposite of what Galileo believed: that the most natural motion was circular motion.

From Wikiquote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei):
I tell you that if natural bodies have it from Nature to be moved by any movement, this can only be circular motion, nor is it possible that Nature has given to any of its integral bodies a propensity to be moved by straight motion. I have many confirmations of this proposition, but for the present one alone suffices, which is this. I suppose the parts of the universe to be in the best arrangement, so that none is out of its place, which is to say that Nature and God have perfectly arranged their structure. This being so, it is impossible for those parts to have it from Nature to be moved in straight, or in other than circular motion, because what moves straight changes place, and if it changes place naturally, then it was at first in a place preternatural to it, which goes against the supposition. Therefore, if the parts of the world are well ordered, straight motion is superfluous and not natural, and they can only have it when some body is forcibly removed from its natural place, to which it would then return by a straight line, for thus it appears that a part of the earth does [move] when separated from its whole. I said "it appears to us," because I am not against thinking that not even for such an effect does Nature make use of straight line motion.

Earthborn
17th January 2009, 01:36 PM
Does this mean that Albert Einstein stole Relativity from Albert Michelson and Edward Morley?No, he stole that from Christiaan Huygens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiaan_Huygens) who clearly wrote before him "Omnis motus et quies corporum relativi sunt" (all motion and rest of bodies are relative), "Motus inter corpora relativus tantum est" (movement between bodies is in all aspects relative) and "‘Quidnam in corporibus quies sit, aut motus nisi aliorum corporum respectu non videtur intellegi posse." (it appears impossible to know whether bodies are moving or at rest, except in respect to one another).

Tubbythin
17th January 2009, 02:59 PM
That is because you forgot about the motion of the Earth towards whatever object was dropped. As I said, and it is fairly obvious without using the formula, the amount the Earth moves towards a typical dropped object is undetectable, but it is still a "real" value mathematically. The rate of acceleration of the object towards the Earth is the same regardless of mass. But the acceleration of Earth towards another object varies on the mass of the object. It is all within Newton's law.

Except the word you actually used was "weight", not "mass".

Galileo
18th January 2009, 11:52 AM
The OP has it wrong. Newton clearly states in his first law of motion that he thinks things tend to move in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force. This was a relatively novel idea, and the direct opposite of what Galileo believed: that the most natural motion was circular motion.

From Wikiquote (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei):

The wikiquote takes Galileo out of context. In other writings, Galileo clearly shows that he knew inertial motion was in straight lines. Galileo's definition of a "natural motion" is different than your own. Beware of the translation.

Galileo anticipated Einstein in discovering curved space.

Subduction Zone
18th January 2009, 12:19 PM
You may believe that. Newton certainly didn't. Newton says that Galileo used 2 laws of motion and 2 corollaries of those laws to figure stuff out.

Note that Newton does not ascribe the inverse square law to Galileo because Galileo did not know that one (although he suspected it, based on his speculations about Plato & the planets). Newton stole the inverse square law from Robert Hooke.

Sorry, wrong again. Isaac Newton also presented the law of equal and opposite reactions. Not only do dropped objects fall towards the Earth, which they do at the same rate of acceleration, but also the Earth falls towards the objects. The Earth will fall faster towards a heavier object than it will fall towards a lighter one. If you noticed I said when dropped separately, if dropped together the Earth falls towards both of them so the speeds would be the same. Google the term barycenter for a further explanation.

Subduction Zone
18th January 2009, 12:22 PM
Except the word you actually used was "weight", not "mass".

You're right, I did, my bad:o Treating mass and weight as if they were interchangeable is one of the hazards of living in a relatively constant gravitational frame of reference.

sol invictus
18th January 2009, 01:57 PM
It's speculated by some that the line about standing "on the shoulders of
giants" was actually a dig at Robert Hooke's physical stature.

And then there was Sydney Coleman, who said "if I have seen further than other men, it is because I stood behind midgets".

What's the point of this thread again?

Galileo
18th January 2009, 05:16 PM
Sorry, wrong again. Isaac Newton also presented the law of equal and opposite reactions. Not only do dropped objects fall towards the Earth, which they do at the same rate of acceleration, but also the Earth falls towards the objects. The Earth will fall faster towards a heavier object than it will fall towards a lighter one. If you noticed I said when dropped separately, if dropped together the Earth falls towards both of them so the speeds would be the same. Google the term barycenter for a further explanation.

You have confused Newton's third (actually first, as the first two were discovered by Galileo) law of motion, with the concept of horizontal inertia, discovered by Galileo.

Wowbagger
18th January 2009, 05:37 PM
No, he stole that from Christiaan Huygens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiaan_Huygens)There ya go! Every scientist is a freakin' plagerist!! :rolleyes:

Galileo
18th January 2009, 09:16 PM
And then there was Sydney Coleman, who said "if I have seen further than other men, it is because I stood behind midgets".

What's the point of this thread again?

Galileo was greater than Newton.

Galileo > Newton

Thus spoke Galileus.

TX50
19th January 2009, 10:37 AM
And then there was Sydney Coleman, who said "if I have seen further than other men, it is because I stood behind midgets".

What's the point of this thread again?

One point was to discuss Sir Isaac Newton's relationships with his peers.
I've never heard of this Sydney Coleman of which you speak. Was he a
member of the Royal Society? :)

TX50
19th January 2009, 10:42 AM
Galileo was greater than Newton.

Galileo > Newton

Thus spoke Galileus.

Newton was in fact the reincarnation of Galileo. Newton was born the year
Galileo died, makes you think, eh? ;)

Subduction Zone
19th January 2009, 10:54 AM
You have confused Newton's third (actually first, as the first two were discovered by Galileo) law of motion, with the concept of horizontal inertia, discovered by Galileo.

What??? This does nothing to refute my claim. Once again Newton surpassed the work of Galileo. Mainly because his development of calculus allowed him to do calculations that Galileo couldn't do. That is why Newtonian physics is used for the study of orbits, not Galilean. Galileo's simple gravitational model is only true when one object is much more massive than the other. Newtonian gravity is not complete either. It took Einstein to tweak it to the understanding that we have of it today.