Talk:Isaac Newton/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Vandalism!!

The page has been vandalized by Kevinazite, but due to the semi-protected status of the page I cannot revert it. Please revert it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.208.83.248 (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In the top right info box it mentions that "Daniel Waterhouse" was his college roommate. This is untrue; he's entirely a fictional character, so someone should remove it. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so I'm pretty sure I can't do it myself...

Also, there's a suspicious "coat of arms" picture of two bones. malisas

The page has been obviously vandalized by Einfall in 19:35, 15 November 2008, but I cannot revert it since the page is the semi-protected. Please revert it. Please remove "coat of arms" picture of two bones, and block that person ID since he made several vandalism in other pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex30001234 (talk • contribs)

• Could you please list my "vandalisms" on my talk page? I would gladly learn of their existance. Einfall (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The coat of arms for Newton seems to be correct - see this link [1], as to whether it should be in the article, that's another question. Mikenorton (talk) 12:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment 1

Gina gao (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC) I don't think theres romance.Gina gao (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)The pronunciation should also include a variation for people who pronounce the word without the yohd sound after the n (e.g. many americans.) The alternate should be something like /nu:tən/.

While we are at it, we could add variations for voiced nasals, and whether the t is released or unreleased, but that's probably overkill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.74.38 (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the revised intro that says Newton shares credit with Leibniz for creating calculus. The text I changed said that Newton invented it far before Leibniz, which is not true. Gregsinclair 15:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: Newton Stole the Calculus from Liebnitz after the Great German Mathematician presented the Calculus in Cambridge university. Liebniz issued proceeding against Newton after he published Liebniz work 4 years after the guy presented the work in Cambridge. At the trial in the UK Newton was the Judge and all the commette were his close frinds and found the Great German Scientist GUILTY !! eheheheheh Francesco Da Cosenza

There are problems in External links! Such as "Newton Research Project" link should be "http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/prism.php?id=1" , "PDF of Newton's Principia: 1687, 1713, and 1726 editions" do not exist(have moved).Mhims (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please cut the last sentence in the introduction regarding the Royal Society poll. It contains very little information. What is the value of a Royal Society poll, and further the value with such a limited comparison? Maybe if he was considered the most influential scientist of all time you could leave it... 2008/June/4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.115.186 (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

== Who was Isaac Newton? == HI MEGAN!!!! Isaac Newton (1642-1727) is considered to be one of the most influential scientists to have ever lived. Born into a Lincolnshire farming family, he was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge. Newton was appointed Master of the Royal Mint in 1696 and President of the Royal Society in 1703 - a position he held for 22 years until his death. In 1705, he was knighted by Queen Anne, the first scientist to be so honoured for his work. The theory behind Principia The Principia combined the ideas of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler into a single theory which explained the underlying universal laws of the cosmos in mathematical terms. Newton's laws united heaven and earth, effectively ending the separation of the natural and the supernatural. In 1684, Newton first published his ideas on universal gravitation in a nine-page paper entitled De moto corporum in gyrum. This work became the basis for Principia. The Philosophise is divided into three books. The first book begins with eight definitions and three axioms. These axioms, which became known as Newton's three laws of motion, are followed by propositions, theorems and problems. The second book covers the motion of bodies through resisting mediums, as well as the motions of fluids. The last book extends the three laws of motion into Newton's law of universal gravitation.

The purpose of this section should be clarified or else removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.254.165 (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

== Who was Isaac Newton? == HI MEGAN!!!! Isaac Newton (1642-1727) is considered to be one of the most influential scientists to have ever lived. Born into a Lincolnshire farming family, he was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge. Newton was appointed Master of the Royal Mint in 1696 and President of the Royal Society in 1703 - a position he held for 22 years until his death. In 1705, he was knighted by Queen Anne, the first scientist to be so honoured for his work. The theory behind Principia The Principia combined the ideas of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler into a single theory which explained the underlying universal laws of the cosmos in mathematical terms. Newton's laws united heaven and earth, effectively ending the separation of the natural and the supernatural. In 1684, Newton first published his ideas on universal gravitation in a nine-page paper entitled De moto corporum in gyrum. This work became the basis for Principia. The Philosophise is divided into three books. The first book begins with eight definitions and three axioms. These axioms, which became known as Newton's three laws of motion, are followed by propositions, theorems and problems. The second book covers the motion of bodies through resisting mediums, as well as the motions of fluids. The last book extends the three laws of motion into Newton's law of universal gravitation.

The purpose of this section should be clarified or else removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.254.165 (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Gravity

Gravity was all of it the Work of Galileo Galilei Newton did NOTHING on the subject !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.66.41 (talk) 11:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Your an idiot. (80.42.157.120 (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

It was Hooke.--Streona (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

How do we know that Newton discovered it besides his word

I know there are Newton followers who claimed that Newton shared the calculus with them before Leibniz's discovery. Besides their word it there any proof? Who were these people? I have never seen any solid evidence that clears Newton's name beyond a shadow of a doubt that he did not steal the calculus from Leibniz and would like toknow if such evidence exists beyond his word and the word of some of this followers (who already were proven to be unreliable during the nasty dispute).

The more I learn about Newton, it seems that he might have stolen just about everything he is credited with. Does anyone have a list of his discoveries that are not shrouded in controversy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.240.87 (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous sources for his discoveries, including his surviving manuscripts, as well as formal and informal writings by his Scientific and literary contemporaries. The dispute with Leibniz is typical of early modern science and shouldn't be extrapolated to highlight Newton as some kind of aberrant con man. Much of his dispute with Leibniz was theological anyway.

Yes, his followerss in the Eighteenth century did eulogize him, but recent scholarship is much more authoritative, and still shows him to be amazingly inventive, or rather, as synthesizing (sometimes widely) disparate traditions within C17th natural philosophy.

See: Bertoloni Meli, D 'Equivalence and Priority: Newton versus Leibniz' (Cambridge 1995) Hall, A.R. 'Philosophers at war: The quarrel between Newton and Leibniz' (Cambridge 1980) Popkin, R.H. 'The Books of Nature and Scripture' (Dordrecht, 1994) 129.67.116.85 (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

isaac newton may not have discovered the law of gravity,no one knows that it was him.us(humnans)discover more about gravity each day our knowlodgement increces about space matter and other stuff.with our education and more infomation is coming from out of space our communtionms from out of space are getting stronger. e.g the space station in russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.244.1 (talk) 07:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

According to John Gribbin, although Newton came up with the tale of an apple falling on his head giving him the inspiration to discover gravity, before this he made seven pages of notes on Robert Hooke's extensive work on what Hooke called "gravity", which he had already tried to measure and postulated the inverse square law --Streona (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Signature

Is signature (wich is used in article) real one? I found that same signature with google photo search, but found also in amazon other one. Is that signature really written ny Newton? 213.186.244.180 (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Signature is taken from [2], but there are two "Newtons" signature, wich one is correct? 213.186.244.180 (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Now it should be right one. QWerk.fi (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Tides

In this article, there's nothing about his great achievement in laying the foundations of the theory of tides. I think there should be something about this, probably near the beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDA555 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Newton was a genius in the field of descriptive geometry and spent a lot of the "Principia" discussing the motion of the moon and of the earth and it's tides. He extended the concept of "universal gravitation" to include the sun and all the 6 planets that were known about at the time. He knew about the force of gravity and about inertia and centripetal force and speculated about magnetic forces and electrical forces, but not about their causes. His rule No.1 in philosophy was to accept only the simplest explanation of an event that was "both true and sufficient to explain the event"WFPMWFPM (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

--124.169.110.18 (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Aspergers syndrome"

Aspergers is very hype nowadays. 40 % of those who get the diagnose don't have the condition. I think you should therefore remove the speculations about him having Aspergers, because you provide absolutely no evidence to back up your claims and i think it's very dehumanizing for the memory of Newton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.162.164.144 (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

AS diagnoses are only increasing because medical awareness is increasing. It wasn't a well documented condition until 1994, therefore many people who ought to have been diagnosed were not. Newton was almost certainly an Asperger sufferer, so too Einstein and many other highly gifted people. It's not a slander on his intellectual gift to say he had AS, it is in fact a possible root of his genius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.23.221 (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but Newton did not have Aspergers syndrome. I friend of mine work as a psychiatrist. She claimed that doctors often say to patients with Aspergers that Einstein or some other brilliant scientist had the condition because it gives them a sense of hope, a sense of pride (many people with Aspergers are often depressed and sometimes even suicidal). If you can prevent them from committing suicide, it will save the doctors alot of paper work and help advance their careers. Genius, creativity and excentricity has absolutely no business associating with autism.

Autism is simply a disorder that makes it very hard, if not impossible, for a person with the condition to interact with other people. Since their is no link between high intelligence and autism, the overwhelming majority of people with Aspergers have average IQ.

Einstein and Newton have been cited as probable cases by Simon Baron-Cohen, a world-leading expert. Your comments about preventing suicides by making up the notion that these people had AS is simply untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.23.221 (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

His opinion about Newton and Einstein is only a theory, not a fact. There are many professor that don't agree with him. You have to understand why he is promoting these opinions.

" British psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen suggests that the evidence that Einstein had Asperger's traits can make it possible for those with the condition to excel and find their niche in life. He also goes on to state that autistic spectrum disorders makes those with the condition depressed and sometimes even suicidal. "If we can do something to make life easier for those with the condition then we should do so," states Baron-Cohen.

These comments may suggest that there is really so little that is good about autistic spectrum disorders that trying to find successful persons of great celebrity would prove a quick fix for those wishing to give hope, raising self-esteem of those on the spectrum. These facts present an argument for persons who take offense at the thought of eradicating autism to mitigate suffering. " Read the excellent article: http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:ET5GkGF_Pq0J:www.jonathans-stories.com/non-fiction/undiagnosing.html+Simon+Baron-Cohen+%22life+easier%22&hl=sv&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=se —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.162.164.144 (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Below is a list of books and academic papers that ALL identify Sir Isaac Newton as autistic or possibly autistic. All but two of the authors of these items are PROFESSORS, and three of them are regarded as having some expertise in autism. If you don't believe me, check it all yourself.

Baron-Cohen, Simon (2003) The essential difference. Penguin Books.

Fitzgerald, Michael, and O’Brien, Brendan (2007) Genius genes: how Asperger talents changed the world. Autism Asperger Publishing Company.

Fitzgerald, Michael (2006) Autism, Asperger’s syndrome and creativity. Autism2006: AWARES Conference Centre. October 4th 2006. http://212.74.184.44:8083/BM_DIRECTORY/E/BM000001662/FIT1.PDF

Gernsbacher, Morton Ann (2007) A conspicuous absence of scientific leadership: the illusory epidemic of autism. http://jepson.richmond.edu/academics/projects/ESSAYGernsbacher.pdf

James, Ioan (2005) Asperger syndrome and high achievement: some very remarkable people. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

James, Ioan (2004) Remarkable physicists: from Galileo to Yukawa. Cambridge University Press.

James, Ioan (2003) Singular scientists. Journal of the Royal society of Medicine. January 2003. Vol. 96, number 1, p. 36-39. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=12519805

Krull, Kathleen (2006) Isaac Newton. (illustrated by Boris Kulikov), Viking.

Royal College of Psychiatrists (2006) Royal College of Psychiatrists Annual Meeting 2006 Glasgow: Thatcherism founder had Asperger's Syndrome. (press release) The Royal College of Psychiatrists. 11th July 2006. http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pressparliament/pressreleases2006/pr820.aspx

And here are references to a different diagnosis of Newton from one (1) authority:

Sacks, Oliver (2004) Autistic geniuses?: we’re too ready to pathologize (letter). Nature. May 20th 2004, Vol. 429, p. 241. [a letter in which Sacks states that he does not believe that Wittgenstein, Einstein nor Newton “were significantly autistic”]

Sacks, Oliver (2002) Uncle Tungsten: memories of a chemical boyhood. Picador, 2002. [in the notes from page 119-121 Sacks discusses Henry Cavendish, describing him as an “autistic genius” while diagnosing Newton with “neurosis” rather than autism]

Improper grammar?

In the third paragraph of the introduction (section before table of contents) and possibly occurring in other places in the article, the sentence reads "In mathematics, Newton shares the credit with Gottfried Leibniz for the development of the calculus."; "the calculus" doesn't sound right to me. Shouldn't it be written "In mathematics, Newton shares the credit with Gottfried Leibniz for the development of calculus." Anyone who agrees with this and has privilege to do so, could they please change it.

--Fujimuji (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Calculus tells us: "Historically, it was sometimes referred to as "the calculus", but that usage is seldom seen today". So, it is supported - but whether it's something we want to perpetuate in our day is another question. I'd characterise it as an archaism, and dispense with the "the". -- JackofOz (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that article just after posting my message and went "ooohhhh", haha. Anyway, I agree that it is an archaism and should be deleted.

--Fujimuji (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that you cite this as improper grammar. Of course, the usage is incorrect for today, but it has nothing to do with grammar...--97.115.3.171 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

British Slave Trade

Newton is listed in the category "British slave traders and slave holders", but this isn't clarified within the actual article text. Is this true, and if so, should it be mentioned in the article? Algabal (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hart, Royal Society, etc.

I've removed the phrase, added about two weeks ago, concerning Michael Hart's ranking of Newton. Hart is one person and is in no way comparable to the Royal Society, or its members, in expertise or accomplishments. Rankings such as his can be thought-provoking, lucrative, and even fun, but they don't carry much weight. - My apology if this point has received prior discussion in the past. Astrochemist (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Freemasonry

I think it is important to note that many of his indications to the Royal Society and other institutional positions were due to him being a Freemason. Quoting of his graduation and close friends who indicated him to his posts can be found by searching Google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.11.185.148 (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I posted a question here regarding a statement in Michael White's book the Last Sorcerer [3] which some self-righteous censor has deleted. I was asking about the assertion that Newton had set the date of Jews returning to their homeland at 1948. This relates perhaps to Freemasonry, to British Israelism and the Christian Zionism of the Anglo Saxons in general and should not be cast aside. It poses questions about the Apocalyptic beliefs of the English ruling classes and also about the science (or pseudo science) of numerology.

Wool Bridge (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Further reading

Observation: The References, Further reading, and External links sections are way too long. A few key references should be sufficient. A dozen items in all of them combined is sufficient.

--Mcorazao (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

At one point the intro clearly identified Newton's greatest contribution, but for some reason doesn't any longer. He was the first to demonstrate that many natural phenomena can be described by precise mathematical laws. He established the basic methodology which physicists have used ever since: go out and measure something precisely; then write down the equations that describe its behavior; solve them; and then check the validity of your solution by comparing with the measurement. This business (in the final line of the intro) of comparing Newton and Einstein is rather tedious, and doesn't belong there. Most practicing physicists (of which I am one) don't regard this as a useful exercise: they lived in very different times. One often hears the opinion that Newton's combined contributions to theoretical and experimental physics and to mathematics exceed those of anyone who followed him. I suspect that most physicists would sign on to that; e.g. you can find that opinion stated in Abraham Pais' splendid biography of NIels Bohr. (Pais also wrote the standard technical biography of Einstein.) But that still doesn't get at the heart of the matter, and is somewhat beside the point. Which leads me to the following suggested replacement for the final sentence of the introduction:

"Newton's greatest contribution was his demonstration that many natural phenomena can be described precisely by mathematical laws.

He established the basic methodology that physicists have used ever since. This revolutionary discovery had a deep influence on modern culture (Feingold Reference): the political philosophy of Locke, the writings of Voltaire, and the Deism of the French and American Revolutions would be inconceivable without it."

Feingold Reference: ``The Newtonian Moment, Mordecai Feingold, New York Public Library/Oxford University Press (2004).

Ratengam —Preceding comment was added at 03:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the motivations for the deletion of that comment. I will say that the first sentence of the quote is perhaps a bit misleading (i.e. one should be careful about quoting authors whose opinions are not necessarily consistent with scholarly consensus). As phrased the sentence implies that Newton was the first one to suggest that the universe could be understood in terms of mathematics and this certainly is not true. Even the Romans (i.e. the Greek Romans) had begun to model physical phenomena mathematically, albeit it primitively. By the high middle ages precise models of lunar motion had been developed (Ibn al-Shatir) along with lots of other mathematical models for describing physical phenomena. And clearly Copernicus' model was highly mathematical in nature.

Newton can be seen as continuing this evolution of thought although, obviously, he pushed the frontier more than anyone ever had. The "revolution" in thought that he created was not the first such revolution created by scientific discovery but he discovered so much in such a short period of time that his revolution was more impressive than most (all?) others.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, a more complete and accurate description would be

"Newton's greatest contribution was his demonstration that many natural phenomena can be described precisely through the methods of mathematical analysis, based on an economical set of laws. He established the basic methodology that physicists have used ever since. This revolutionary discovery had a deep influence on modern culture (Feingold Reference): the political philosophy of Locke, the writings of Voltaire, and the Deism of the French and American Revolutions were inconceivable without it."

Analysis in the modern sense didn't really exist before Newton and Leibniz. And prior attempts to describe orbital motion quantitatively only amounted to matching 'fitting functions' to the data. The 'revolution' was a real one because it combined for the first time i) an appreciation of the importance of experiment (which developed gradually over the preceding centuries, but was relatively lacking in Greek science) with ii) a development of mathematical methods to the minimal level needed to describe the simplest of natural phenomena. As always in science, it was the result of a collective effort: Newton may not have developed the calculus if he hadn't been taught by Barrow, and there is good evidence that Hooke explained to him the role of inertia in circular motion But the basic lesson of Newton's work is that you have achieved some real understanding only when you can successfully compare the solution to the equation with the data. His great contemporary Huygens was also both a fine mathematician and a physicist, and (for example) published a detailed solution to the motion of a pendulum. Boyle's gas law provides perhaps the simplest example of a physical law expressed in terms of an equation -- but in its original formulation it only involved an elementary scaling relation. Newton's formulation of classical dynamics was general and complete; and the application of his law of gravity both to terrestrial and celestial phenomena provided the first startling suggestion that the entire universe is subject to a uniform set of physical laws. So his work really provided the template for further developments in mathematical physics.

Ratengam —Preceding comment was added at 00:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

newton cheveux long en prison —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.254.25.197 (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The "divine geometer" and William Blake

In "Newton" blake attacks newton!

the comment on this picture is heavily incorrect. completely displaced. For Blake, the circumference is the eternal symbol of eternity, not that funny 8 resting on its side. Notice that newton has, in the piece of paper, only an arc. meaning the circumference is incomplete. Blake attacks newton in this picture, because the latter can't apprehend the infinite quality of, for sake of the doors, objects.

quotation from Blake: "God us keep, from single vision and newton's sleep"

...peace —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.0.78 (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of his name

Article gives the pronunciation of his name in IPA as /ˈnjuːtən/. Frankly, I'm not good at IPA, but I think that the pronunciation that I always hear would be /ˈnuːtən/. This is presumably a regional/dialect thing, but this raises the question: How do we know how Newton pronounced his name, or in other words what pronunciation is correct? -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"Noo" sounds like the way an American or Canadian would say it, these days. "Nyu" is the way the British, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, Indians and various others say it, these days. How Newton actually pronounced his own name - I couldn't say for sure, but I'd be very surprised if it was the "Noo" version. Presumably there would have been almost as many regional variations back then as there are now. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, regional variations are not that relevent here since the surname Newton is derived from a placename (In Warwickshire I think). I'm not 100% sure how they pronounce the name there, but my guess would be nyu-ton. That is how all Englishmen pronounce it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlglover (talk • contribs) 11:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"Known for" items

I simplified the long newly-added list of items in the infobox to just Newtonian mechanics, universal gravitation, calculus, and optics, the four general areas that have been represented in the box for a long time. I'm in awe of Newton's work, but my bet is that the "See also" section is a better place to list all of his many achievements. Jumping from four to eighteen "Known for" items seems like a rather significant change, so could some of the regular contributors to this article leave opinions? - Astrochemist (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk page maintenance

This talk page had become rather long, so I have archived all threads shewing no activity this year (2008). I have also added a talk page header, which incorporates links to the archives, and will generate links to future archives. I hope this is helpful to other editors. DuncanHill (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC) huh??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.252.199 (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Newton was german

I think Newton spoke german, and his grandfather was from germany. I cant find the source. Can someone help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BaronVonBismark (talk • contribs) 10:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: this is a sock puppet/troll account.—RJH (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Mental iIlness

Something about Newton's mental illness is missing.[4] Miraceti (talk) 07:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Isaac Newton's coat of arms

Hello. As Mikenorton wrote above, the "two bones" weren't a vandalism but true Newton's CoA. Because I have no intention to start any edition wars I place this under debate: is a mention about a person's CoA worthy to place it in the article about that person or not? Actually this can be a whole section containing a mention that Newton was first scientist to be knighted, a blazon and symbolism of the CoA. Same goes for another scientists that are missing their CoA's. To say about the most famous ones only: Laplace, Fourier, Gauss and many many others. Einfall (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Patricia Fara mentions Newton's coat of arms in her article: "Scientific coats of arms", Endeavour, September, 2005, pages 79 – 80. See also her book, Newton: The Making of a Genius. My personal opinions are that Newton's choice (i) is not particularly attractive and (ii) doesn't add to this Wikipedia article. - Astrochemist (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

So people shouldn't learn about Newton's CoA's existance only because it wasn't attractive? I think that it adds a lot to the article. Most people doesn't even know that Newton had some CoA. If you don't like the two pirate-like bones here, maybe a separate article will be a solution? Einfall (talk) 10:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's pretty or not is irrelevant. I don't know enough about this to have an opinion whether it's notable or not, but no one seems to make that argument. I think it should be included.
—Apis (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Question about opening paragraph

According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies), ethnicity (but nationality is okay) should not be mentioned in the opening unless it is part of the person's notability. Why is it mentioned here? --Enzuru 03:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Because English was his nationality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sir Isaac Newton is an ancestor of mine...

My family did tons of research in geneolgy and found sir isaac newton is one of our ancestors. That explains why i love the stars so much!!! so is ulysses s. grant, which explains why i'm so stubborn! lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.82.161.203 (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Are you sure? Newton had no children;) Einfall (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Immaculate conception? (God in the Gaps perhaps?) --Candy (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sir Isaac Newton was born on December 25, 1642.

Falling Apple Story

I recently added this well researched paragraph to the end of the apple story text:

At least one reference disputes the accuracy of this story and tells another: In January 1680 Robert Hooke wrote a letter to Isaac Newton proposing that the planets are attracted toward the sun by a force inversely proportional to the distance squared. In November 1684 Newton wrote a draft of De Motu including an error that reveals he had not yet developed the concept of universal gravitation. Around 1717 Newton began circulating the falling apple story. Presumably Newton fabricated this just so story to make plausible his false claim that he understood universal gravitation many years earlier.

The referenced article is extremely well researched. This addition improves the NPOV of the text, yet it has been twice removed because "the article does not claim Newton understood universal gravitation in 1660's" However, the second quote specifically identifies 1665 as the date he gained a profound understanding of gravity.

I believe the contribution significantly improves the NPOV and overall accuracy of the article. I request support in having the text restored.

Thanks, --Lbeaumont (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

the contribution is garbled and meaningless and can't stand. It is not well researched because it does not look at what leading scholars have said on the matter. Instead we have the claim that "Presumably Newton fabricated this just so story to make plausible his false claim" -- we don't make presumptions and allegations like that at Wikipedia. Newton did NOT claim that he had a full theory of gravity on apple-day, only that it got him started on the Moon issue and we have his notebooks that prove that about that time he did start work on the Moon issue (that is, the pull of Arth's gravity on the moon).Rjensen (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The referenced article is published by Scientific American originally in March 1981 and again in a compilation of articles on scientific genius and creativity. The author is I. Bernard Cohen, an accomplished scholar on Newton. The specific topic of the article is the process Newton followed to arrive at his conclusions. The author researched this topic in great detail. The article includes images of original letters and manuscripts written by Newton. The Latin is carefully translated, the math and physics is carefully analyzed. Newton’s discovery process was protracted, collaborative, and evolutionary. The misleading implication of the apple story is that a flash of genius accomplished what actually took him 3-4 decades of collaboration. This is clearly false. Wikipedia must not simply delete inconvenient truths. According to your sources, and the Wikipedia article as written, when do you believe apple day was? Have you carefully read the referenced article? --Lbeaumont (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have carefully read Cohen's more recent work and I tried to summarize his findings (and those of Westfall and others). The article does not state that he acquired a full theory of gravity on apple day (Newton never recalled the day of the week) but that he started research and made major findings at the time.Rjensen (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As a minimum I believe the story has to be set in the context of a timeline that includes the following events: In January 1680 Robert Hooke wrote a letter to Isaac Newton proposing that the planets are attracted toward the sun by a force inversely proportional to the distance squared. (Propose a year for “apple day” are you suggesting it was 1666?). In November 1684 Newton wrote a draft of De Motu including an error that reveals he had not yet developed the concept of universal gravitation. (The error is that he described the elliptical focal point as being the center of the sun, not the center of gravity of the sun-planetary system). Around 1717 Newton began circulating the now-famous story.

Adjust the dates to fit your best understanding of the research. Was there a flash of genius, when did it take place, what concepts were illuminated, what ones continued to evolve, what did he get right on apple day, what did he get wrong or continue to investigate, with whom did he collaborate, how great were the contributions of the collaborators (especially as compared to the apple revelations, if any), did he clearly acknowledge the role the collaborators insights played? Thanks, --Lbeaumont (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Apple day was probably 1666 when he was at the farm waiting out the plague. We know that by 1669 he had figured out the inverse square law all by himself, which was the key breakthrough, along with the idea that gravity is universal and not peculiar to Earth. As for the details for the entire Newtonian model of gravity, Westfall takes about 100 pages to explain them and I recommend a serious reading of his great biography. It's hard to condence that into 50 words. Newton was a loner who read everything but rarely collaborated. Rjensen (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Correction Needed for Laws of Motion

The following sentence in the Newton's Laws of Motion section is incorrect:

"Because this relation only holds when the mass is constant, that is, when \scriptstyle{dm/dt=0}, the first term vanishes, and the equation can be written in the iconic form..."

The fact is that F = dp/dt is correct (in Newtonian Physics) EVEN IF MASS IS NOT CONSTANT. Since most systems do have constant mass, dm/dt = 0 and that is why we typically see this written as F = m*dv/dt, or F = ma. However there are situation where mass changes, the most famous is that of a rocket where the mass is decreasing as the fuel is burned to propel it forward. In that case, one uses the F = dp/dt (change in linear momentum) to calculate the dynamics.

Therefore, I suggest that the above sentence be replaced by the following:

"In the more common situation where the mass of the system is constant, \scriptstyle{dm/dt=0}, the first term vanishes, and the equation can be written in the iconic form" ...

Evilrho (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think as far as Newton was concerned, he thought it WAS constant, so probably didn't see the difference between dp/dt and mdv/dt. Torricelli01 (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I have made the change as suggested.
—Apis (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually F=dp/dt is only valid here if the mass is constant.Newton's_laws_of_motion#Open_systems says something about it. I'll change it back for now, maybe someone can give a more satisfactory explanation.
—Apis (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. F=dp/dp = d(mv)/dt = dm/dt*v + m*dv/dt. The dm/dt term accounts for the change in mass. Why would an equation which has the term dm/dt in it only be valid when that term equals zero? The thing is, almost every situation you're familiar with deals with constant mass. But the law deals with the time derivative of linear momentum which is the product of both mass and velocity, so there is no more reason why mass should remain constant than there is for velocity to remain constant. F=ma is just a specific case of the more general (and correct) form of the equation which has no such constraints on mass. Please consult an elementary dynamics or mechanics book if you do not believe me. Evilrho (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify a bit more on the above. One doesn't have to understand Physics to see the fallacy in the original sentence. What is claimed is that Newton came up with an equation A = B. We know that B = C + D (that part is certain). Thus, A = C + D, but now it's claimed that this is only valid when C = 0. That really doesn't make sense, because it means that the equation is just A = D and the C part is wrong. So that means that A is NOT equal to B and Newton must have been wrong. In other words, claiming that F = dp/dt is only valid for a constant mass contradicts F = dp/dt.

The Open Systems reference you cite above refers to a different set of problems, but if you read it through, especially the last sentence, you will see that it does not contradict F = dp/dt, only that if the mass of the system changes, the resulting thrust forces must be taken into account. In fact, that reference validates my claim that F=dp/dt is appropriate for non-constant mass systems like a rocket, so long as the burning fuel is taken into account - thus making it a closed system. (In the case of the rocket or the bucket of water, it really wouldn't make sense to neglect the fuel or the water!) This distinction is a fine point applicable to an advanced class of problems. In this context claiming that in general F=dp/dt is only for constant-mass systems is patently false. Evilrho (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I changed it back to what you suggested again. I've checked my elementary dynamics books and they define newtons second law in terms of F=ma, m constant. For systems of varying mass i think F=m*dv/dt + dm/dt*(v - v_0) is valid, where v_0 is the velocity of the expelled/absorbed mass. I'm sorry, I'm too tired to think about this right now, but I might get back to it later.
—Apis (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! For the context of this article it is better to leave it this way, since it is now mathematically correct. It's correct in terms of the physics too. The finer points of how this equation should be used and applied to Newtonian Physics problems can be left for the other articles which concentrate on them. Again, the confusion stems from the distinction of what many dynamicists refer to as Open and Closed (or Complete) systems as the article you cited does. In fact, that article is a bit confusing, especially the 2nd paragraph. But the intent is not that F = dp/dt is only for constant-mass systems, but rather that you have to be careful in how you consider systems with changing mass. You can model them as a collection of constant-mass (dm/dt = 0) particles - in which case F = dp/dt = ma is calculated for each particle; or you can apply F = dp/dt to the overall system with a non-zero value of dm/dt, so long as you account for the effect the expelled mass has on the object in question. Blind application of F = dp/dt without doing this will give erroneous results.Evilrho (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

All my textbooks carefully avoid using F=dp/dt so I can't provide any precise quotes. As you say, you can't blindly use F=dp/dt without considering the expelled mass. So in a way you could say that F=dp/dt isn't valid for changing mass objects. And there is nothing wrong with the math in either case. It's just a matter of how the second law is defined. The way I see it the second law applies to a constant mass object, but it is possible to extend the theory using the second law to also be useful for objects that change mass over time, but then we end up with different equations. So it seems fair to say F=dp/dt only apply when dm/dt = 0.
—Apis (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, please believe me when I say that your above statements are wrong. Saying F = dp/dt is only valid for constant mass systems is wrong. Period. Yes, you have to be careful when analyzing some systems (like rockets) when the mass is changing, but that does not invalidate the equation. The reason your textbooks avoid dp/dt is that most elementary Physics books are too wary of the math and concepts involved with dp/dt. In fact, most high school and introductory college physics books avoid Calculus all together. The result is that they simplify the concepts for the intended audience. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I actually have advanced degtrees in this field and I have taught Kinematics and Dynamics at the collegiate level. This really isn't open for debate, and I urge you to keep the article as it currently stands. Evilrho (talk) 07:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Evilrho, we already had this debate a few months ago. It was concluded that the comments about open systems are sufficient to cover this point. I believe you are contradicting yourself to say:

"...you can apply F = dp/dt to the overall system with a non-zero value of dm/dt, so long as you account for the effect the expelled mass has on the object in question. Blind application of F = dp/dt without doing this will give erroneous results."

Can you explain how to account for the effect of the expelled mass without modifying the equation? If the equation must be treated with special care in order to make it work right with open systems, it is not the correct equation to apply to open systems. If your solution is to turn the open system into a closed system with constant mass, then it becomes a moot point, because we are saying the equation is valid for closed systems. The only other way to do it (I believe) I will explain below. Please let me know if you have another way.

It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that the equation F=dp/dt defines the derivative of linear momentum for a system as exactly equal to the sum of external forces applied. However, this is obviously false for a system that is gaining or losing mass, where the mass entering or leaving the system carries with it some of the system's momentum (So in one sense, like you said, Newton's F=dp/dt was wrong. Or more precisely, it was limited in scope because he only had closed systems in mind when he wrote the law.). There are at least two ways for system momentum to change: 1) external forces and 2) addition or subtraction of mass which has nonzero momentum in the reference frame you are using. The correct way to account for this is to complete the equation to fully account for all changes in system momentum. The momentum of (2) is accounted for by the second term on the left hand side.

$\mathbf {F} +{\frac {dm}{dt}}\mathbf {v} _{\text{io}}={\frac {d\mathbf {p} }{dt}}$

where v_io is the velocity of the center of mass of all the matter that is entering or leaving the system (all the dm). By expanding the right side we get

$\mathbf {F} +{\frac {dm}{dt}}\mathbf {v} _{\text{io}}=m{\frac {d\mathbf {v} }{dt}}+\mathbf {v} {\frac {dm}{dt}}$

where v, the velocity of the center of mass of the entire system, is distinct from v_io. Now then grouping the dm/dt terms on the left,

$\mathbf {F} +{\frac {dm}{dt}}(\mathbf {v} _{\text{io}}-\mathbf {v} )=m{\frac {d\mathbf {v} }{dt}}.$

The quantity (v_io − v) is the nozzle exit velocity v_e, yielding the correct equation of motion for a rocket,

$\mathbf {F} +{\frac {dm}{dt}}\mathbf {v} _{\text{e}}=m{\frac {d\mathbf {v} }{dt}}$

where the left side is the sum of external forces F (aero, gravity, etc.) and the thrust dm/dt*v_e, and the right side is ma.

If you consider thrust to be just another force and group it in with the rest of F, you get F=ma. Of course, this applies to any open system, but a chemical rocket is one of the most intuitive examples. Do you know of a third way to treat open systems correctly using F=dp/dt? MarcusMaximus (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact the derivation above is precisely what Apis found in his text when he stated that "F=m*dv/dt + dm/dt*(v - v_0)". MarcusMaximus (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

MarcusMaximus, That is a very good and accurate analysis. I have no problem with that. However, I was not contradicting myself by pointing out that you have to be careful in applying F=dp/dt to an open system. You don't really change the law or the equations, you just have to be careful in what you consider to be the Mass and Velocity of the "System". My only contention is that the article originally implied (by mathematical argument - see above) by its wording that F=ma is really the only correct equation since dp/dt is supposedly only applicable when mass is constant. This carries the implication that the only thing that a net Force can result in is a change in Velocity, or inversely, that ONLY a change in Velocity can result in a net Force. But by your own (correct) words you say,

"There are at least two ways for system momentum to change: 1) external forces and 2) addition or subtraction of mass which has nonzero momentum in the reference frame you are using."

(Of course changing the velocity would also change the momentum.) In other words, a change in mass can lead to a resultant Force or change in Velocity.

In your analysis above, you've called on F=dp/dt with non-zero values of dm/dt several times. The second term in your first equation is exactly that! This is simply the force on the system from the added (or subtracted) material which is dm/dt*v_io. (Since v_io is taken to be constant, there's no ma_io term.) Newton's law, in its most general form of F=dp/dt is what allows this. If we only had F = ma, you could not do what you just derived. Newton was wise in stating the law this way as opposed to the simplified F=ma equation which really doesn't capture the core concept of momentum.

In fact, if we turn to rotational systems, T = dL/dt where L is the angular momentum and T is Torque. This is the rotational analogue of F=dp/dt. And note that we do not restrict this to be only for systems with constant moment of inertia (the mass analogue). The moment of inertia can change, and result in a torque and/or an angular velocity change. But I digress... Evilrho (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There's clearly certain restrictions to when Newton's second law applies. That does not invalidate the equation only limits it's scope. For example: it's only valid in an inertial frame of reference. If you naively use F=dp/dt on a rocket you will get the wrong result. So it does not universally apply to objects with changing mass. (And regarding my textbooks, I assure you they do not try to avoid calculus).
—Apis (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Evilrho, I fail to see your distinction between "being careful" with the way we apply F=dp/dt on the one hand, and needing to modify the equation as I showed above when we use it with varying mass systems on the other hand. The latter seems to be a sufficient condition to say "this equation does not correctly describe the behavior of variable mass systems."

In your statement that "you just have to be careful in what you consider to be the Mass and Velocity of the 'System'" aren't you admitting that this equation is not universally true for all systems; it is only true for a special subset of systems? MarcusMaximus (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

After reading your reply again, I realized that I didn't answer your specific argument that the second term in my first equation is "simply the force on the system from the added (or subtracted) material which is dm/dt*v_io." I disagree. The force exerted on the system by the departing mass is the delta velocity of that portion of mass times the mass rate of change, which is dm/dt*(v_io−v_cm) where cm stands for the center of mass of the system. Considering that dp/dt essentially consists of two parts (dm/dt*v_cm and m*dv_cm/dt), the dm/dt*v_cm that was required to create the delta velocity comes from the dp/dt term on the right.

So if you are going to say that the second term in my first equation is just a force that is already accounted for by the F on the left-hand side, the dm/dt*v_cm portion of dp/dt is "used up" already. You can't set that equal to dp/dt on the right-hand side any longer or you'd have a false equation. Thus, the right-hand side becomes simply ma.

So it comes down to two choices:

• Add the dm/dt*v_io term to the left-hand side to account for the momentum that is carried away by departing mass and set the sum of external forces plus this additional term equal to dp/dt,

$\mathbf {F} _{\text{external}}+{\frac {dm}{dt}}\mathbf {v} _{\text{io}}={\frac {d\mathbf {p} }{dt}}.$

In this case dm/dt*v_io is not a force, it is the total momentum of the departing mass. A force only results if this mass does not have the average momentum of the rest of the system, that is, if v_io is not equal to v_cm.

• Consider the departing mass to exert a simple external force on the system, lump it in with F and set all the forces equal to ma (where m is not necessarily constant),

$\mathbf {F} _{\text{other}}+\mathbf {F} _{\text{io}}=\mathbf {F} _{\text{total}}=m\mathbf {a}$

where F_io = dm/dt*(v_io−v_cm).

I think you are attempting to mix the two.

As for rotational systems, that only holds true because moment of inertia is dependent on geometry as well as quantity (unlike mass, which is only dependent on quantity). So if you had a rotating system whose inertia is changing because of changes in the internal arrangement of mass, then T = dL/dt certainly holds true. However, if you have a system where chunks of mass are flying off and taking a quantity of angular momentum with them, you have to modify the equation to account for that. I haven't given this question a lot of thought, but I think this it would utilize the fact that L = Iω + r × p for each particle.

MarcusMaximus (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

MarcusMaximus: Let's recall what my original point was. The article in it's original form stated that F = dp/dt was valid only for systems where dm/dt = 0. Forget about Physics for a second and think about the math. That means that F = dp/dt = ma. Always. That is incorrect. In all your equations above, you've used non-zero values of dm/dt. This draws upon F = dp/dt because you're considering the change in momentum of the ejected (or joining) mass on the object in question. Sure, there are restrictions on how we use this. If you want to consider a system like a rocket as a collection of constant-mass particles where only F=ma applies, that's fine. Or, you can draw your box around a different set of masses and apply dp/dt taking into account all the external forces acting on it. It doesn't matter. The fact that restrictions apply does not change the equation, no more than E=mc^2 is only applied to certain systems in the right context. If you have a problem with F=dp/dt being applied to changing-mass systems you'll have to take that up with nearly every text written on Newtonian Mechanics.

Oh, and I never said that "the second term in my first equation is just a force that is already accounted for by the F on the left-hand side". That doesn't make sense. At least that was not my intent. My contention is that it is the resultant force of the mass being ejected. You have the sum of forces on the left (external, and the resultant thrust of the ejected (or joining) mass) equated to the the ma term on the right. You say, "In this case dm/dt*v_io is not a force..." but that's not true. It HAS to be a force. Otherwise, how are you adding it to another force and and equating it to ma (which is in force units) on the other side. You can't add apples and oranges!

Explain to me how the equations of thrust from a rocket are derived without using F = dp/dt and non-zero values of dm/dt.

I'll let you have the last word on this, Maximus. I realize there are philosophical and semantic differences between academics on how to treat, analyze and understand these principles. But I don't think you'll find anyone in the field (including all my fellow engineers here at NASA) that would say such a thing as "F = dp/dt applies only to systems where mass is constant". Evilrho (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Evilroh, you appear to be confused about the mathematics here. The article said F=dp/dt when mass is constant. That does not mean F=dp/dt=ma always, only when m is constant. Nor does it exclude the possibility that F=dp/dt when |dm/dt| > 0. And as I pointed out earlier, several books on dynamics does indeed define newtons second law as F=ma (and no, not out of fear of calculus). So "every text written on Newtonian Mechanics" does not have a problem with it.
—Apis (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Apis, I am not confused about the math. Look back at my very first post. The article originally presented F = dp/dt then said: "Because this relation only holds when the mass is constant,...". It sounds like we both agree this is not the case. And that was my only point. F = dp/dt = d(mv)/dt = m*dv/dt + dm/dt*v = ma + dm/dt*v. Do you agree with that statement? I hope so. The original wording said F = dp/dt is true **ONLY** when mass is constant. If that were the case, then we are left with F = dp/dt = ma because dm/dt = 0. That would mean that F = dp/dt reduces to F = ma ALL THE TIME.

This is like saying E = mc^2 + K is only true when K = 0. If that's true (which it is in this example) then the K part is not necessary and we're left with E = mc^2. Just because a lot of books simplify dp/dt to ma does not mean it's the whole story. I can refer you to my text books which correctly state that this is for the specific (and very common) case when mass is constant - but this is not a necessary constraint. Evilrho (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Evilrho, I don't find the same consensus here at Lockheed Martin that you find at NASA, and we are certainly "in the field". I refer you to the reference section of the wikipedia article on Newton's laws of motion, specifically references 22:

Halliday; Resnick. Physics. 1. pp. 199. "It is important to note that we cannot derive a general expression for Newton's second law for variable mass systems by treating the mass in F = dP/dt = d(Mv) as a variable. [...] We can use F = dP/dt to analyze variable mass systems only if we apply it to an entire system of constant mass having parts among which there is an interchange of mass."

and 23:

Kleppner; Kolenkow. An Introduction to Mechanics. pp. 133–134. "Recall that F = dP/dt was established for a system composed of a certain set of particles...it is essential to deal with the same set of particles throughout the time interval...Consequently, the mass of the system can not change during the time of interest."

Also see Spaceflight Dynamics by Wiesel, among other texts.

Yes, I used nonzero values of dm/dt, but I did not start with F=dp/dt. I modified that equation to account for the non-force-caused change in momentum that varying mass systems experience. If I had merely used a nonzero dm/dt and started with F=dp/dt I would not have been able to derive the correct equation of motion.

Yes, I agree that you stated the second term in my first equation was the resultant force of the mass being ejected (which I did not state clearly). However, I disagree with your statement. The dm/dt*v_io term is absolutely not a force. It is the time rate at which momentum (in the inertial frame) carried by the propellant leaves the system. It has the same units as force, which are momentum/time, so they can be summed. But the ejected mass exerts a force on the rocket proportional to (v_io − v_cg), not just v_io.

I presume that you agree the expression for thrust is the product of the mass flow rate and the exit velocity, where the exit velocity is expressed relative to the rocket, not the inertial frame. However, v_io is the propellant velocity in inertial space, so clearly dm/dt*v_io is not the thrust force. You must expand the dp/dt on right side into (dm/dt*v_cg + ma) and move the first term over to the left to create dm/dt*(v_io−v_cg), which is the thrust force. You can't create this thrust term by starting with F=dp/dt. Otherwise you have to come up with an excuse to include a non-force dm/dt*v_io on the left side of the equation, only to borrow a term from the right side to then create an expression that is truly a force. MarcusMaximus (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact I can go to NASA's website and point out the error they are fortunate to make that allows them to conveniently delete that pesky dm/dt*u term (they use u for velocity), effectively reduce their equation to F=ma and arrive at the correct result by offsetting errors. They make an error by starting with F= dMu/dt, first of all. Then however, about halfway down the page, they declare,

Substituting the expression for the thrust into the motion equation gives:

d (M u) / dt = V eq * d mp / dt

d (M u) = Veq d mp

Expanding the left side of the equation:

M du + u dM = Veq d mp

Assume we are moving with the rocket, then the value of u is zero:

M du = Veq d mp

Of course, the glaring problem with this subtle "assumption" is that we are changing reference frames mid-derivation. Not only does (1) the velocity u go to zero, but (2) so does the acceleration du by definition because the rocket is the reference frame, and (3) the reference frame we are working in is no longer inertial, so Newton's law doesn't even apply in this form! By accepting only one of Nature's three conditions, NASA is able to cancel out their original error of F= dMu/dt and arrive at the correct answer. MarcusMaximus (talk) 06:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Marcus Maximus: First let me admit that I have been lazy in this exchange. I had not really studied this issue nor followed the finer points of your posts with the attention it deserved. I’ve been drawing off of what I remembered from several years ago when I discussed this with another colleague. Your last post caused me to peruse this subject in more detail.

I bristled at the article’s original wording simply because of the supposed constant-mass restriction. I did not intend to get into this debate over open vs. closed systems. While I still maintain that such a restriction on mass is incorrect (at least in a pedagogical context), I will concede that you are correct on several counts and I was wrong on several of my prior statements.

It is true that Newton’s second law is applicable for “closed” systems only, and to extend it to an open system requires modifying the equation. (But those modifications are themselves rooted in the second law – more in a bit). I was wrong when I said otherwise. Also, your assertion that the second term in your first equation is not force is correct. It has force units but just like Work and Torque have the same units, they are not identical physical quantities.

Nevertheless, the fact that Newton’s second law is not applicable to “open” systems is not a shortcoming of Newton’s. This idea of “open” vs. “closed” systems is a post-Newtonian invention. I would argue that open systems are sort of a hack that we use out of convenience. In essence we’re looking at object A (like a rocket) and its dynamic response to an external object B (its fuel) and only considering the response of object A to the momentum exchange while neglecting object B. You’ll get the correct results doing this, and although I have not checked your citations, I am aware that this technique is quite common in the literature. However, if I were a student in your class and you wrote that first equation of yours I would ask you how you know that adding dm/dt*v_io is a “legal” maneuver and what exactly is the physical meaning of this term. Bellow I’ll show that this term comes from the dp/dt of object B.

Coincidentally, last night I was IM-ing with an old grad school friend of mine who teaches Dynamics. In his mind, the “closed” system is always the most fundamental--it doesn’t really make sense to apply the second law to an open system. But to say that dm/dt is always constrained to be zero begs the question as to why we persist on ever writing it as F = dp/dt instead of F = ma.

So in one of your above posts you asked if I know a way of deriving the rocket equation using F=dp/dt. Here goes. This requires that we define the system as closed. In essence, we draw a box around the rocket and its fuel. Define the mass of the rocket and the mass of the fuel leaving (and having left) the rocket as m_r and m_f respectively. Likewise the absolute (from the fixed inertial frame) velocities of these masses (their centers) are v_r and v_f. The total momentum of the system is p_t = m_r*v_r + m_f*v_f. Define the rate of mass transfer from the rocket to the fuel as dm/dt. Employing Newton’s second law in its most general form gives us:

$\mathbf {F_{t}} ={\frac {d\mathbf {p_{t}} }{dt}}={\frac {dm_{r}}{dt}}\mathbf {v_{r}} +m_{r}\mathbf {a_{r}} +{\frac {dm_{f}}{dt}}\mathbf {v_{f}} +m_{f}\mathbf {a_{f}}$

F_t is the sum of external forces on the entire system. Since the rocket is loosing mass while the fuel (leaving and having left) is increasing at a rate of dm/dt, we have:

$\mathbf {F_{t}} =-{\frac {dm}{dt}}\mathbf {v_{r}} +m_{r}\mathbf {a_{r}} +{\frac {dm}{dt}}\mathbf {v_{f}} +m_{f}\mathbf {a_{f}}$

$\mathbf {F_{t}} +{\frac {dm}{dt}}(\mathbf {v_{r}} -\mathbf {v_{f}} )=m_{r}\mathbf {a_{r}} +m_{f}\mathbf {a_{f}}$

You’ll recognize v_r – v_f as the nozzle velocity – your v_e from above. The terms are switched because of the sign convention I’ve used on dm/dt.

$\mathbf {F_{t}} +{\frac {dm}{dt}}\mathbf {v_{e}} =m_{r}\mathbf {a_{r}} +m_{f}\mathbf {a_{f}}$

Now we can neglect the last term since a_f is taken to be essentially zero. Also, F_t includes forces on the fuel as well as the rocket (F_t = F_r + F_f). The fuel having left the rocket is not coupled to the rocket itself so the F_f term drops leaving us:

$\mathbf {F_{r}} +{\frac {dm}{dt}}\mathbf {v_{e}} =m_{r}\mathbf {a_{r}}$

The way I look at it, all the equations for open systems are really derived from the more complete and fundamental closed system analysis. We cannot blithely say Newton’s second law is restricted to constant-mass systems. That’s cheating. We CAN say that it should only be applied to closed systems, and that is my mistake for not recognizing this earlier. The Haliday citation of yours basically says this. (And if you want to analyze the rocket in terms of F = ma with thrust as one of the external forces of F, I still don't see how one derives the thrust force without dp/dt and a change in mass.)

I know that many authors will explicitly or implicitly imply that we MUST have constant mass, but then we're left introducing these new terms to an open system when all you really need is the pure application of the second law in its proper context.

Finally, let me commend you on finding that embarrassingly egregious error on NASA’s web page. Not only is the Physics wrong, the page looks downright amateurish. Obviously, I don’t work in the rockets division! ;-)

So you work at Lockheed Martin? If you’re in the Bay Area office maybe we can settle this mano a mano at the location of your choice. Thanks for taking me to task on this. It’s been fun. Evilrho (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about Newton and his physics, not about Newtonian physics as it developed after his death by Lagrange etc. Therefore we do not want to mislead people into thinking Newton understood the fine points we are discussing--those appear to be post-Newton and belong in a different article. Rjensen (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with Rjensen. - Astrochemist (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I originally started that thread thinking it was a minor typo and just wanted to clarify the wording describing Newton's second law. (See my first post). I had no idea it would set off the controversy that it did, but if Wikipedia is to be an accurate and trustworthy source of information, then precision in its wording is paramount. I apologize for the inconvenience it may have caused. Evilrho (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC).

Archiving

This discussion page is getting long and some contributions are rather hard to follow. Could another archive be set up, perhaps by the end of 2008? -- Astrochemist (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I could set up automatic archiving if no one objects to that?
—Apis (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about "automatic archiving", but the page has now become cumbersome to read. An archive of its current content would be appreciated. - Astrochemist (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Were John Wickins and Humphrey Newton Isaac's students?

I've just now removed John Wickins and Humphrey Newton from the Students category in the infobox. They may have worked with Isaac Newton and have lived with him, but I don't know of reliable evidence that they were students in any traditional sense of the term. Gjertsen, More, and Brewster suggest they were not IS's students. Enlightenment and reliable verification will be welcome. - Astrochemist (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I liked versification better...

Twas the night before Christmas and close to the hearth

Young Widow Newton was about to give birth

To the premature Newton of apple fall fame

etc, etc.

Cheers. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnabas Smith

Barnabas Smith was the minister of the church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.254.229 (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Typo

• {{cite book |last=Andrarde |first=E. N. De C. ==> should be * {{cite book |last=Andrade |first=E. N. De C. i.e. Adrarde => Andrade 80.60.203.201 (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I've made the correction. -- Astrochemist (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Newton's sources

I think some mention of Galileo as the inspiration for the laws of motion should be made. He found the displacement as a function of time squared law and realised that a force was not required to maintain uniform motion (contrary to Aristotle). Also Cavalieri had the integration law for polynomials prior to Newton, and Fermat and others had the differentiation law for polynomials first. Newton's innovation was to show they were related. Torricelli01 (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Newton's dates?

They're given as (4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727 [OS: 25 December 1642 – 20 March 1726]). No time to check now, but surely that's wrong for his year of death?. For a date in March, wouldn't the New Style and Old Style year be the same, i.e. O.S. 1727, not 1726, assuming the New Style date is correct? 72.224.64.165 (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a hard time keeping straight the different calendars, dates of adoption, and date for the changeover of a year in various nations over time. However, I think that the "Date of Death" entry on this talk page addresses your concern. -- Astrochemist (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)