Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in
Menu
Find a journal Publish with us Track your research
Search
Cart
  1. Home
  2. Archive for History of Exact Sciences
  3. Article

Newton's Argument for Proposition 1 of the Principia

  • Published: May 2003
  • Volume 57, pages 267–311, (2003)
  • Cite this article
Download PDF

Access provided by China Pharmaceutical University

Archive for History of Exact Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript
Newton's Argument for Proposition 1 of the Principia
Download PDF
  • Bruce Pourciau1 
  • 245 Accesses

  • 33 Citations

  • Explore all metrics

The first proposition of the Principia records two fundamental properties of an orbital motion: the Fixed Plane Property (that the orbit lies in a fixed plane) and the Area Property (that the radius sweeps out equal areas in equal times). Taking at the start the traditional view, that by an orbital motion Newton means a centripetal motion – this is a motion ``continually deflected from the tangent toward a fixed center'' – we describe two serious flaws in the Principia's argument for Proposition 1, an argument based on a polygonal impulse approximation. First, the persuasiveness of the argument depends crucially on the validity of the Impulse Assumption: that every centripetal motion can be represented as a limit of polygonal impulse motions. Yet Newton tacitly takes the Impulse Assumption for granted. The resulting gap in the argument for Proposition 1 is serious, for only a nontrivial analysis, involving the careful estimation of accumulating local errors, verifies the Impulse Assumption. Second, Newton's polygonal approximation scheme has an inherent and ultimately fatal disability: it does not establish nor can it be adapted to establish the Fixed Plane Property. Taking then a different view of what Newton means by an orbital motion – namely that an orbital motion is by definition a limit of polygonal impulse motions – we show in this case that polygonal approximation can be used to establish both the fixed plane and area properties without too much trouble, but that Newton's own argument still has flaws. Moreover, a crucial question, haunted by error accumulation and planarity problems, now arises: How plentiful are these differently defined orbital motions? Returning to the traditional view, that Newton's orbital motions are by definition centripetal motions, we go on to give three proofs of the Area Property which Newton ``could have given'' – two using polygonal approximation and a third using curvature – as well as a proof of the Fixed Plane Property which he ``almost could have given.''

Article PDF

Download to read the full article text

Similar content being viewed by others

Physical vs. numerical approximation in Isaac Newton’s Principia

Article 13 August 2024

Newton polygons arising from special families of cyclic covers of the projective line

Article 09 January 2019

On pendulums and air resistance

Article 22 September 2015

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.
  • Classical Mechanics
  • Formal Reasoning
  • Logic
  • Newtonian Physics
  • Reasoning
  • Functional Analysis
Use our pre-submission checklist

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics Lawrence University Appleton, WI 54912, USA bruce.h.pourciau@lawrence.edu, , , , , , US

    Bruce Pourciau

Authors
  1. Bruce Pourciau
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

(Received August 14, 2002) Published online March 26, 2003

Communicated by G. Smith

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pourciau, B. Newton's Argument for Proposition 1 of the Principia. Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 57, 267–311 (2003). http://doi.org/10.1007/s00407-002-0062-x

Download citation

  • Issue Date: May 2003

  • DOI: http://doi.org/10.1007/s00407-002-0062-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

  • Local Error
  • Planarity Problem
  • Approximation Scheme
  • Fundamental Property
  • Traditional View
Use our pre-submission checklist

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Advertisement

Search

Navigation

  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Books A-Z

Publish with us

  • Journal finder
  • Publish your research
  • Language editing
  • Open access publishing

Products and services

  • Our products
  • Librarians
  • Societies
  • Partners and advertisers

Our brands

  • Springer
  • Nature Portfolio
  • BMC
  • Palgrave Macmillan
  • Apress
  • Discover
  • Your US state privacy rights
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms and conditions
  • Privacy policy
  • Help and support
  • Legal notice
  • Cancel contracts here

202.119.189.180

Springer ejournal Jiangsu Regional consortium (3902333164) - China Institute of Science & Technology acting through National Science and (3000202650) - China Pharmaceutical University (2000352041) - SLCC Jiangsu eJournals Consortium 2015-2017 (3991465546) - 10786 SLCC Jiangsu (3000803042) - Nature DRAA eJournal National Consortium (3902333280)

Springer Nature

© 2025 Springer Nature