Mistranslation of Newton’s First Law Discovered after Nearly 300 Years

[BidenPresident]

A new interpretation of Isaac Newton’s writings clarifies what the father of classical mechanics meant in his first law of motion

Newton’s further writings make it quite clear he meant his first law to refer to all bodies, not just theoretical force-free ones, says George Smith, a philosopher at Tufts University and an expert in Newton’s writings.

“The whole point of the first law is to infer the existence of the force,” Smith says. At the time Newton was writing, he says, it was not at all taken for granted that objects required a force to move them about; there were all sorts of old theories about objects having their own animating power. Aristotle, for example, thought that heavenly bodies were made of a theoretical form of matter called aether and naturally moved in circles. Newton was rejecting all of these older ideas in his writing, Smith says, and pointing out that there is no such thing as an object upon which no forces are acting.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...w-discovered-after-nearly-300-years/?amp=true

 

[AProudLefty]

A new interpretation of Isaac Newton’s writings clarifies what the father of classical mechanics meant in his first law of motion

Newton’s further writings make it quite clear he meant his first law to refer to all bodies, not just theoretical force-free ones, says George Smith, a philosopher at Tufts University and an expert in Newton’s writings.

“The whole point of the first law is to infer the existence of the force,” Smith says. At the time Newton was writing, he says, it was not at all taken for granted that objects required a force to move them about; there were all sorts of old theories about objects having their own animating power. Aristotle, for example, thought that heavenly bodies were made of a theoretical form of matter called aether and naturally moved in circles. Newton was rejecting all of these older ideas in his writing, Smith says, and pointing out that there is no such thing as an object upon which no forces are acting.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...w-discovered-after-nearly-300-years/?amp=true

In layman's term, please.

 

[AProudLefty]

I think I understand.

A body at rest does not necessarily mean it is force free. There might be multiple forces exerted on it that counteracts each other, thus keeping it motionless.

An example would be a weight suspended by a rope. Gravity is acting on it, but it remains motionless.

 

[AProudLefty]

 

[Cypress]

Always good to work on translation, but people intuitively understand inertia even if they haven't been lectured in Newton's first law by physicists.

The moon's orbit results from the combination of the moon's inertia and the centripetal acceleration due to gravity. So Newton's first and second laws routinely work in tandem -- the first law was never meant to only apply to theoretical bodies experiencing no forces.

Although it's not strictly theoretical. Comets, asteroids, and rogue planets out in interstellar space may just be moving due to inertia in principle

 

[Into the Night]

A new interpretation of Isaac Newton’s writings clarifies what the father of classical mechanics meant in his first law of motion

Newton’s further writings make it quite clear he meant his first law to refer to all bodies, not just theoretical force-free ones, says George Smith, a philosopher at Tufts University and an expert in Newton’s writings.

“The whole point of the first law is to infer the existence of the force,” Smith says. At the time Newton was writing, he says, it was not at all taken for granted that objects required a force to move them about; there were all sorts of old theories about objects having their own animating power. Aristotle, for example, thought that heavenly bodies were made of a theoretical form of matter called aether and naturally moved in circles. Newton was rejecting all of these older ideas in his writing, Smith says, and pointing out that there is no such thing as an object upon which no forces are acting.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...w-discovered-after-nearly-300-years/?amp=true

There is no 'interpretation'. There are certainly objects with no force acting on them.

F=mA. If mass is zero, Force must be zero. If there is no acceleration, Force must be zero.

 

[AProudLefty]

There is no 'interpretation'. There are certainly objects with no force acting on them.

F=mA.

Where?

 

[Into the Night]

I think I understand.

A body at rest does not necessarily mean it is force free. There might be multiple forces exerted on it that counteracts each other, thus keeping it motionless.

An example would be a weight suspended by a rope. Gravity is acting on it, but it remains motionless.

A body with no acceleration has no forces acting on it. F=mA. A weight suspended by a rope has the force of gravity acting on it. Even the rope and whatever you suspend it from has the force of gravity acting on it.
It is not motionless either.

 

[AProudLefty]

A body with no acceleration has no forces acting on it.

False. A body can have two equal but opposing forces acting on it.