• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Newton Stole First 2 Laws of Motion From Galileo!

"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:
  1. Galileo's discoveries were because the first 2 laws and first two corollaries existed but had not yet been formulated by Newton.
  2. Galileo's experiments were tests of the first 2 laws and first two corollaries which he had already formulated.
  3. 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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
 
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?
 
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:
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.
 
Does this mean that Albert Einstein stole Relativity from Albert Michelson and Edward Morley?
No, he stole that from 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).
 
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".
 
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:

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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? :)
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom