But while the mathematical principles of the Newtonian system were ably
expounded in our seats of learning, its physical truths were generally
studied, and were explained and communicated to the public by various
lecturers on experimental philosophy. The celebrated Locke, who was
incapable of understanding the Principia from his want of mathematical
knowledge, inquired of Huygens if all the mathematical propositions
in that work were true. When he was assured that he might depend upon
their certainty, he took them for granted, and carefully examined
the reasonings and corollaries deduced from them. In this manner he
acquired a knowledge of the physical truths in the Principia, and
became a firm believer in the discoveries which it contained. In the
same manner he studied the treatise on Optics, and made himself master
of every part of it which was not mathematical.[52] From a manuscript
of Sir Isaac Newton’s, entitled “A demonstration that the planets, by
their gravity towards the sun, may move in ellipses,[53] found among
the papers of Mr. Locke, and published by Lord King,” it would appear
that he himself had been at considerable trouble in explaining to his
friend that interesting doctrine. This manuscript is endorsed, “Mr.
Newton, March, 1689.” It begins with three hypotheses (the first
two being the two laws of motion, and the third the parallelogram
of motion), which introduce the proposition of the proportionality
of the areas to the times in motions round an immoveable centre of
attraction.[54] Three lemmas, containing properties of the ellipse,
then prepare the reader for the celebrated proposition, that when a
body moves in an ellipse,[55] the attraction is reciprocally as the
square of the distance of the body from the focus to which it is
attracted. These propositions are demonstrated in a more popular manner
than in the Principia, but there can be no doubt that, even in their
present modified form, they were beyond the capacity of Mr. Locke.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account