Origins of Newton's First Law The Physics Teacher AIP Publishing

Origins of Newton's First Law | The Physics Teacher | ... https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/pte/article/53/2/80/277347/O...
FEBRUARY 01 2015
Origins of Newton's First Law 

Eugene Hecht
The Physics Teacher 53, 80–83 (2015)

https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4905802
Anyone who has taught introductory physics should know that

roughly a third of the students initially believe that any object
at rest will remain at rest, whereas any moving body not
propelled by applied forces will promptly come to rest.
Likewise, about half of those uninitiated students believe that
any object moving at a constant speed must be continually
pushed if it is to maintain its motion.1 That's essentially
Aristotle's law of motion and it is so “obviously” borne out by
experience that it was accepted by scholars for 2000 years,
right through the Copernican Revolution. But, of course, it's
fundamentally wrong. This paper tells the story of how the
correct understanding, the law of inertia, evolved and how
Newton came to make it his first law.
Topics
Friction, Kinematics, Newtonian mechanics, Special
relativity, Educational aids, Educational assessment,
Books, Physicists, Mathematician, Journal
Anyone who has taught introductory physics should know that

roughly a third of the students initially believe that any object
at rest will remain at rest, whereas any moving body not
propelled by applied forces will promptly come to rest.
Likewise, about half of those uninitiated students believe that
any object moving at a constant speed must be continually
pushed if it is to maintain its motion.1 That's essentially
Aristotle's law of motion and it is so “obviously” borne out by
experience that it was accepted by scholars for 2000 years,
right through the Copernican Revolution. But, of course, it's
1 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
fundamentally wrong. This

paper tells the story of how the
correct understanding, the law
of inertia, evolved and how
Newton came to make it his
first law.
The Philosopher,
impetus, and
Kepler
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) was
so esteemed in the Middle
Age that he was reverentially
known as the Philosopher.
Even though most of his
physics was wrong, the
scholastics of the era
doggedly followed his
teachings. For them, and
hence for Christendom, the
celestial domain was
everlasting and formed of a
fifth perfect element—æther.
Space was filled; vacuum
could not exist. Each ordinary
element (fire, earth, air, and
water) had its place toward
which it strained to return. An
earthlike rock had gravitas and
naturally fell to the center of
Earth, the center of the
universe. Any other motion
was unnatural and required
some external influence. A
mover must continuously be in
contact with that which it
2 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
moves.
Apart
from
falling,
rest
was
the
default
state
of
weighty
things.
The
idea
that
without
some
tangible
entity
pushing
or
pulling
it
an
object
could
not
experience
sustained
(unnatural)
motion
had
not
gone
unchallenged
in
3 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
medieval
times;
the
sixth-
century
commentator
John
Philoponus
(490–570),
while
considering
projectile
motion,
asserted
that
“[s]uch
a
view
is
quite
incredible
and
borders
on
the
fantastic.”2
He
proposed
that
just
as
a
poker
carries
heat
away
4 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
from
the
fire,
so
upon
being
set
into
motion
an
object
carries
away
some
motive
power.
As
long
as
a
projectile
retains
this
internal
drive
(which
came
to
be
known
as
impetus),
it
continues
to
move,
5 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
stopping
only
when
there
is
resistance,
which
dissipates
that
self-
propelling
influence.
Five
centuries
later,
the
Muslim
scholar
Abu
'Alī
ibn
Sīnā
(980–1037),
known
in
the
West
as
Avicenna,
concluded,
“[N]obody
begins
to
move
or
comes
6 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
to
rest
of
itself.”3
This
is
probably
the
earliest
precursor
of
the
first
law
and
that
revelation
would
reemerge
centuries
later.
In
Paris
Jean
Buridan
(c.
1295–
c.
1358),
extending
Philoponus's
work,
maintained
(c.
1330)
that
7 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
what
he
christened
impetus
could
be
considered
an
internalized
motive
force.
In
both
ancient
and
medieval
physics,
force
is
that
which
causes
motion;
in
Newtonian
physics,
force
is
that
which
changes
motion.
“This
impetus
would
endure
8 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
for
an
infinite
time,”
proclaimed
Buridan,
“if
it
were
not
diminished
and
corrupted
by
an
opposed
resistance
[e.g.,
friction]
or
by
something
tending
to
an
opposed
motion
[i.e.,
gravity].”4
In
an
imagined
vacuum
free
of
gravity,
9 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
if
there
was
such
a
possibility,
impetus
theory
allowed
(as
had
Aristotle)5
that
once
set
in
motion,
a
body
sans
resistance
would
move
uniformly
and
rectilinearly
forever.
But
that
was
“obviously”
impossible.
Furthermore,
there
could
exist
10 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
both
rectilinear
and
rotational
impetus.
Thus,
a
balanced
frictionless
millstone,
once
set
revolving,
could
whirl
forever,
as
do
the
celestial
orbs
having
been
spun
by
the
hand
of
God
at
the
moment
of
creation.
Around
1618
11 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
Johannes
Kepler
(1571–1630),
mathematician
to
Emperor
Rudolph
II,
introduced
the
notion
of
the
“inertia
of
matter”:
“For
each
body
in
proportion
to
its
matter
possesses
a
certain
inertial
resistance
to
motion.
This
inertia
provides
a
12 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
state
of
rest
for
the
body
in
any
place
in
which
it
is
located
beyond
the
reach
of
forces
of
attraction.”6
Kepler's
inertia
resists
motion;
it
does
not
sustain
uniform
motion.
It
is
not
Newton's
13 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
inertia.
Rest
is
a
state
of
being,
just
as
uniform
motion
will
become
a
state
of
being
in
the
hands
of
Galileo.
Galileo
and
Descartes
In
his
Discourses
Concerning
Two
New
Sciences
(1638),7
Galileo
14 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
Galilei
(1564–1642,
Fig.
1)
described
several
demonstrations
that
explored
the
nature
of
motion.
He
proposed
to
set
two
lengths
of
molding
end
to
end,
one
tilted
down,
the
other
up,
such
that
a
ball
descending
the
15 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
first
could
smoothly
ascend
the
second.
The
Tuscan
Master
then
successively
lessened
the
angle
of
the
second
ascending
plane.
Although
the
ball
rolled
farther
with
each
angle
decrease,
it
always
slowed
to
a
stop
at
just
16 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
about
the
same
height
at
which
it
was
initially
released.
Any
difference,
he
concluded,
was
due
to
friction,
and
that
was
a
pivotal
insight.
Galileo
surmised
that
if
the
second
plane
was
horizontal
and
the
process
17 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
truly
frictionless,
the
ball
would
travel
forever.
He
asked
his
reader
to
“[i]magine
any
particle
projected
along
a
horizontal
plane
without
friction;
then
we
know,
…
that
this
particle
will
move
along
this
same
plane
18 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
with
a
motion
which
is
uniform
and
perpetual
provided
the
plane
has
no
limits.”8
Fig.
1
Galileo
Galilei.
Portrait
by
Ottavio
Leoni,
Dec.
31,
1623.
On
a
spherical
Earth
pretty
much
everything
moves
19 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
along
circles;
circular
motion,
though
not
always
apparent,
is
everywhere.
Sig.
Galileo
was
a
very
practical
thinker;
he
knew
that
if
that
“horizontal
plane”
was
long
enough,
it
must
also
follow
the
curvature
of
the
planet.
20 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
This
is
well
beyond
Aristotle's
law,
especially
since
the
Philosopher
did
not
take
friction
to
be
a
force.
Nonetheless
Galileo
does
not
explicitly
embrace
the
linearity
of
inertia.
After
all,
he
accepted
the
Copernican
worldview;
the
21 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
Sun
was
at
the
center
and
everything
revolved
around
it.
In
such
a
finite
universe
an
object
moving
rectilinearly
forever
made
little
sense.
He
even
argued
in
the
Dialogue
Concerning
the
Two
Chief
World
Systems
(1632),
22 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
regarding
moving
bodies,
“it
is
impossible
that
their
motions
should
be
straight….”9
Yet
he
could
also
say,
“the
velocity
acquired
…
which
if
acting
alone
would
carry
the
body
at
a
uniform
rate
to
infinity….
”10
23 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
Galileo's
earliest
statement
on
inertia
appeared
in
a
letter
published
in
1613.
Therein
he
advised,
“a
heavy
body
on
a
[frictionless]
spherical
surface
concentric
with
the
Earth
…
will
maintain
itself
in
that
state
in
24 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
which
it
has
once
been
placed;
that
is,
if
placed
in
a
state
of
rest,
it
will
conserve
that;
and
if
placed
in
movement
toward
the
west
(for
example),
it
will
maintain
itself
in
that
movement.”11
25 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
This
is
not
rectilinear
motion,
nor
is
it
circular
inertia;
gravity,
Galileo's
only
natural
force,
is
acting.
Although
Galileo
got
tantalizingly
close
to
the
law
of
inertia,
he
never
fully
articulated
it.
By
contrast,
the
mathematician
26 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
René
Descartes
(1596–1650)
imagined
inertial
motion
was
both
uniform
and
rectilinear.
Without
the
bother
of
experimentation,
he
straightened
Galileo's
conception:
“[It]
is
one
of
the
Laws
of
Nature,
that
all
Things
will
continue
in
the
State
27 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
they
once
are,
unless
any
external
Cause
interposes….”12
Consequently
“when
a
body
moves,
though
its
motion
is
most
frequently
performed
in
a
curved
line
[echoes
of
Galileo]
…
nevertheless
each
of
its
particular
parts
tends
always
28 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
to
continue
its
own
[motion]
in
a
right
[straight]
line.”13
A
body
could
sail
rectilinearly
forever
in
an
endless
Cartesian
universe.
Descartes,
who
was
never
one
to
credit
his
sources,
derided
Galileo's
work.
More
egregiously,
Descartes
29 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
did
not
credit
his
own
mentor,
the
Dutch
scholar
Isaac
Beeckman
(1588–1637).
As
early
as
1613–1614,
Beeckman
maintained
(as
had
Avicenna)
that
an
object
in
motion
stays
in
motion
because
it
cannot,
by
itself,
do
otherwise.
30 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
He
knew
that
it
takes
an
external
force
to
change
motion,
but
he
wrongly
thought
inertia
was
both
linear
and
circular.
Intimidated
by
Descartes's
denunciations,
Beeckman
never
published
his
own
brilliant
conclusions,
which
he
had
freely
31 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
shared
with
Descartes.
Some
of
his
journals
did
find
their
way
into
print
(1644),
but
that
was
only
years
after
his
death.
Although
Descartes
got
it
right,
it
was
for
the
wrong
reason;
as
he
put
32 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
it,
“[R]est
is
contrary
to
motion,
and
nothing
by
its
own
nature
can
tend
toward
its
contrary….”
Not
so;
rest
and
uniform
motion
are
actually
indistinguishable.
Descartes
never
got
near
that
subtle
Beeckmanean-
Galilean-
Einsteinean
insight.
33 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
Descartes
went
on
to
fill
space
with
invisible
fluid
vortices
that
moved
the
planets;
having
no
need
for
it,
he
dispensed
with
gravity
altogether.
Predictably,
Newton,
who
was
brought
up
on
the
popular
Cartesian
worldview,
ultimately
34 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
disavowed
it
completely.
The
Principia
and
Lex
I
While
an
undergraduate,
Newton
(Fig.
2)
came
to
appreciate
Galilean
relativity.
Master
Galilei
imagined
a
ship
moving
at
constant
velocity
in
a
calm
sea.
He
concluded
(1632)
35 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
that
no
observer
could
determine,
from
the
behavior
of
any
number
of
mechanical
devices
located
in
an
isolated
cabin,
the
speed
of
the
vessel.
“[N]or
could
you
tell
from
any
of
them,”
he
asserted,
“whether
the
36 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
ship
was
moving
or
standing
still.”14
The
laws
of
mechanics
must
be
the
same
in
all
uniformly
moving
coordinate
systems.
This
wonderful
realization
would
have
a
profound
effect
on
Newton.
37 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
Fig.
2
William
Blake's
Newton
(1795),
color
print
with
pen
and
ink.
In
1684,
prompted
by
Dr.
Edmond
Halley,
Newton
at
42
began
the
great
work
revolutionizing
dynamics.
He
soon
produced
a
nine-
page
38 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
monograph
titled
De
motu
corporum
in
gyrum
(i.e.,
On
Motion
of
Bodies
in
Orbit);
it
would
become
part
of
a
longer
treatise.
His
efforts
over
the
next
two-
and-
a-half
years
culminated
in
the
Philosophiæ
39 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
Naturalis
Principia
Mathematica
(Fig.
3),
a
book
that
changed
physics,
and
indeed
Western
culture,
forever.
Fig.
3
Newton's
Principia.
Licensed
under
Creative
Commons
Attribution
—
Share
Alike
2.0
via
Wikimedia
Commons,
http://commons.wikimedia.org.
Prior
to
40 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
Galileo,
uniform
motion
was
ongoing
change,
an
object
moved
through
absolute
space,
and
it
changed
its
absolute
location;
uniform
motion
was
a
becoming,
whereas
rest
was
an
abiding.
Rest
was
a
stasis,
an
unaltered
state;
by
41 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
contrast,
uniform
motion
had
to
be
maintained
by
some
agency
such
as
impetus.
The
two
were
philosophically
antithetical,
as
Descartes
wrongly
insisted.
Seventeenth-
century
philosophers
frequently
used
the
Latin
term
vis,
meaning
force,
and
so
42 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
vis
insitae
(inherent
force)
was
commonly
the
power
that
propelled
a
body
in
uniform
motion.
Newton
in
drafts
of
De
motu
incorporated
that
term
in
his
Law
1.
Later
recognizing
that
uniform
motion
was
an
unchanging
43 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
state
of
being,
he
introduced
a
new
term
of
his
own,
vis
inertiae
(force
of
inertia).
And
he
made
it
clear
that
this
was
not
a
force
in
the
same
sense
as
“impressed
force”
(vis
impressa)
44 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
was
a
changer
of
motion.15
Newton,
appreciating
irony,
took
the
word
inertia
from
a
printed
correspondence
in
which
Descartes
rejected
Kepler's
epiphany.16
By
the
time
Newton
got
to
writing
the
rest
of
the
Principia
(which
45 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
is
all
about
force),
he
had
a
refined
appreciation
of
inertia—“I
do
not
mean
Kepler's
force
of
inertia,
by
which
bodies
tend
to
rest,
but
a
force
of
remaining
in
the
same
state
either
of
resting
46 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
or
of
moving.”17
And
he
had
the
concept
of
impressed
force—
what
we
call
applied
force—
as
the
action
that
changes
the
state
of
motion
or
rest.
The
Principia
begins
with
eight
definitions
and
a
47 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
scholium
(skoh-
lee-
uhm)
or
commentary
on
time,
space,
and
motion.
Newton
embraced
absolute
time
but
not
absolute
space.
As
he
put
it,
“[I]nstead
of
absolute
places
and
motions
we
use
relative
ones,
….
For
48 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
it
is
possible
that
there
is
no
body
truly
at
rest
to
which
places
and
motions
may
be
referred.”18
If
space
is
absolute,
uniform
motion
(velocity)
is
absolute
and
distinct
from
absolute
rest,
but
if
49 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
velocity
is
relative
(as
per
Galileo),
absolute
rest
disappears
and
the
law
of
inertia
is
a
consequence.
With
the
conceptual
terrain
in
place,
Sir
Isaac
offered
up
(1687),
LEX
I:
Corpus
omne
perseverare
in
statu
50 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
suo
quiescendi
vel
movendi
uniformiter
in
directum,
nisi
quantenus
a
viribus
impressis
cogitur
statum
illum
mutare.
LAW
1:
Every
body
perseveres
in
its
state
of
rest,
or
of
uniform
motion
in
a
right
line,
unless
it
51 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
is
compelled
to
change
that
state
by
forces
impressed
upon
it.
Our
exegesis
of
Law
1
begins
with
a
caution
from
Prof.
James
Clerk
Maxwell.
He
pointed
out
(1877)
that
the
word
body
was
not
52 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
explicated
in
the
Principia.
We
could
guess
that
Newton
meant
a
“point
mass”
and/or
a
“rigid
object.”
In
any
event,
Maxwell
suggested
“the
body
[alluded
to]
may
be
rotating,
or
it
may
consist
of
parts,
and
53 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
be
capable
of
changes
of
configuration,
so
that
the
motions
of
different
parts
may
be
different,
but
we
can
still
assert
the
laws
of
motion…
”
by
replacing
the
word
body,
whereupon
Law
1
reads:
“The
54 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
center
of
mass
of
the
system
perseveres
in
its
state
of
rest…
.”19
The
phrase
“perseveres
in
its
state
of
rest,
or
of
uniform
motion”
owes
a
lot
to
Galilean
invariance,
which
informs
that
we
cannot
55 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
perceive
a
difference
between
rest
and
uniform
motion.
Since
rest
is
changeless,
in
a
space
where
there
are
no
“absolute
places,”
uniform
motion
is
relative,
and
it
too
is
changeless.
Inasmuch
as
force
is
the
56 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
agent
of
change,
uniform
motion
does
not
require
a
net
applied
force
in
order
to
be
sustained
.That
these
“states”
are
empirically
indistinguishable
is
Einstein's
first
postulate
of
relativity
(1905).20
By
contrast,
if
Aristotle's
law
57 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
of
motion
were
true,
all
things
would
stop
moving
when
the
propelling
forces
acting
on
them
ceased.
They
would
then
all
be
at
absolute
rest,
which
is
a
fiction.
In
Law
1,
“uniform
motion”
means
58 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
constant
speedas
per
Galileo.
The
Latin
phrase
in
linea
recta
translates
“in
a
right
line”
or
for
the
modern
reader
“in
a
straight
line.”
Recall
that
it
was
Descartes
who
exclaimed,
“when
a
body
moves,”
it
59 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
“tends
always
to
continue
its
own
[motion]
in
a
right
line.”21
The
last
portion
of
Law
1
reads,
“unless
it
is
compelled
to
change
that
state
by
forces
impressed
upon
it.”
Here
“forces”
excludes
the
so-
60 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
called
“inertial
force.”
Newton
is
talking
about
“impressed
force”
and
for
him
there
are
three
kinds:
pressure
(e.g.,
a
sustained
push),
percussion
(i.e.,
an
impact),
and
centripetal
(e.g.,
gravity).
Law
1
pertains
to
all
applied
forces,
61 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
individually
and
in
combination.
Newton
used
the
plural:
“forces
impressed.”
He
distinguished
between
internal
forces
that
do
not
change
motion
and
external
“impressed”
ones
that
do.
Moreover,
he
had
the
parallelogram
technique
for
adding
forces
two
62 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
at
a
time,
knowing
that
they
are
directional
quantities.22
Even
though
Law
1
does
not
explicitly
say
as
much,
as
soon
as
the
net
impressed
force
vanishes
(unlike
a
stretched
spring
or
raised
cannonball),
the
body
63 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
moves
uniformly
in
a
new
force-
free
self-
sustained
state.
It
does
not
return
to
its
original
state;
only
the
further
change
of
motion
ceases.
Given
Law
2,
commentators
have
often
wondered
why
Law
1
was
64 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
necessary.
There
are
several
good
scientific
reasons
(which
will
be
examined
in
a
future
essay)
and
an
additional
one
that
is
more
personal.
The
latter
comes
from
Newton's
animosity
toward
the
Cartesian
worldview.
Descartes
shunned
experimentation,
65 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
creating
a
theory
of
the
universe
via
reason
and
religion
alone,
“off
the
top
of
his
head”
as
it
were.
Newton
found
that
offensive
to
his
own
mathematically
formulated
empirical
philosophy.
The
Principia
Philosophiæ
(1644),
66 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
Descartes's
influential
major
offering,
was
a
speculative
fantasy
displaying
little
physical
insight;
not
surprisingly
it
would
serve
as
both
an
irritant
and
a
foil
for
Sir
Isaac.
He
even
turned
the
title
of
his
own
work
67 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
into
a
jibe
at
Descartes
by
appropriating
the
words
Principia
and
Philosophiæ.
Newton
added
Naturalis
and
Mathematica,
as
if
to
tell
his
readers
that
this
alone
was
the
long-
awaited
mathematically
rigorous
version
of
natural
philosophy.
68 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
He
presented
as
Law
1
what
any
knowledgeable
reader
at
the
time
would
have
recognized
as
Descartes's
first
and
second
laws
of
nature
(without
even
mentioning
René),
but
then
he
set
the
record
straight
giving
Galileo
69 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
credit
for
it.
One
can
imagine
Newton,
who
could
be
ruthlessly
vindictive,
smiling
as
he
put
pen
to
paper.
References
1. Ibrahim
A.Halloun
and
DavidHestenes,
“Common
sense
concepts
about
motion,”
Am.
J.
Phys.
53,
1056–1065
(Nov.
1985).
70 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
ht
tp
s://
do
i.o
rg/
1
0.
11
19
/1.
14
03
0
G
o
o
g
l
e
S
c
h
o
l
a
r
C
r
o
s
s
r
e
f
2. EugeneHecht,
71 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
Physics
in
Perspective
(Addison-
Wesley,
Reading,
MA,
1980),
pp.
31–92.
G
o
o
g
l
e
S
c
h
o
l
a
r
3. H.
J.
J.Winter,
“The
Arabic
Achievement
in
Physics,”
in
Toward
Modern
Science,
Vol.
1,
72 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
edited
by
Robert
M.
Palter
(The
Noonday
Press,
New
York,
1961),
p.
171.
G
o
o
g
l
e
S
c
h
o
l
a
r
4. Ref.
3,
Ernest
A.Moody,
“Laws
of
motion
in
medieval
physics,”
p.
73 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
220.
5. To
prove
the
absurdity
of
vacuum,
Aristotle
argued:
“[W]hy
should
it
[i.e.,
a
body
set
in
motion
in
vacuum]
stop
in
one
place
rather
than
in
another?
So
either
it
will
be
resting
or
it
will
of
74 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
necessity
be
travelling
without
end,
unless
obstructed
by
something
more
powerful.”
Physics,
translated
by
Hippocrates
Apostle
(Indiana
University
Press,
Bloomington,
IN,
1969),
p.
73.
6. JohannesKepler,
Somnium,
translated
by
Edward
Rosen
(University
of
Wisconsin,
Madison,
1967),
p.
73.
G
75 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
o
o
g
l
e
S
c
h
o
l
a
r
7. GalileoGalilei,
Dialogues
Concerning
Two
New
Sciences,
translated
by
Henry
Crew
and
Alfonso
deSalvio
(Dover
Publications,
New
York,
1954),
pp.
170
and
215.
The
first
word
76 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
in
the
title
(discorsi)
is
nowadays
translated
“discourses.”
G
o
o
g
l
e
S
c
h
o
l
a
r
8. Ref.
7,
p.
244.
9. GalileoGalilei,
Dialogues
Concerning
the
Two
Chief
World
Systems
—Ptolemaic
and
Copernican,
translated
77 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
by
Stillman
Drake,
(University
of
California
Press,
Berkeley,
1967),
p.
19.
G
o
o
g
l
e
S
c
h
o
l
a
r
C
r
o
s
s
r
e
f
10. Ref.
7,
p.
215.
78 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
11. StillmanDrake,
Discoveries
and
Opinions
of
Galileo
(Double-
day
Anchor,
Garden
City,
NY,
1957),
p.
113.
G
o
o
g
l
e
S
c
h
o
l
a
r
12. AlexandreKoyré,
Newtonian
Studies
(Harvard
University
Press,
Cambridge,
MA,
1965),
79 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
p.
73.
G
o
o
g
l
e
S
c
h
o
l
a
r
C
r
o
s
s
r
e
f
13. Ref.
12,
p.
73.
14. Ref.
9,
pp.
186–188.
15. MaxJammer,
Concepts
of
Force
80 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
(Harvard
University
Press,
Cambridge,
MA,
1957),
p.
119.
G
o
o
g
l
e
S
c
h
o
l
a
r
16. IsaacNewton,
The
Principia,
translated
by
I.
Bernard
Cohen
and
Anne
Whitman
(University
of
California
Press,
Berkeley,
81 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
CA,
1999),
p.
100.
G
o
o
g
l
e
S
c
h
o
l
a
r
17. Ref.
16,
p.
404.
18. Ref.
16,
p.
411.
19. James
ClerkMaxwell,
Matter
and
Motion
(Dover
Publications,
New
York,
1991),
p.
82 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
48.
G
o
o
g
l
e
S
c
h
o
l
a
r
20. EugeneHecht,
“From
the
postulates
of
relativity
to
the
law
of
inertia,”
Phys.
Teach.
38,
497
(Nov.
2000).
83 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
ht
tp
s://
do
i.o
rg/
1
0.
11
19
/1.
13
29
09
6
G
o
o
g
l
e
S
c
h
o
l
a
r
C
r
o
s
s
r
e
f
84 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
21. Ref.
12,
p.
73.
22. Galileo
had
a
similar
understanding
of
how
to
add
the
two
component
velocities
of
a
projectile.
Gene
Hecht
is
a
professor
of
physics
and
author
of
a
number
of
books,
including
three
85 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
on
American
ceramics
and
seven
on
physics.
Among
the
latter
are
Optics
published
by
Addison-
Wesley,
and
Quantum
Mechanics
published
by
Schaum's
Outline
McGraw-
Hill.
His
latest
book
is
George
Ohr:
The
Greatest
Art
86 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
Potter
On
Earth.
His
main
interests
are
the
history
of
ideas
and
the
elucidation
of
the
basic
concepts
of
physics.
He
spends
most
of
his
time
teaching,
studying
physics,
and
training
for
his
fifth-
87 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55
degree
black
belt
in
Tae
Kwan
Do.
genehecht@aol.com
©
2015
American
Association
of
Physics
Teachers.
88 of 88 4/20/23, 12:55

Origins of Newton's First Law The Physics Teacher AIP Publishing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Origins of Newton's First Law The Physics Teacher AIP Publishing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Origins of Newton's First Law | The Physics Teacher | ... https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/pte/article/53/2/80/277347/O...