My modernization of Definition I in Newton's Principia

[PencilPusher]

Give me your thoughts on my modernization of Definition I of Newton's Principia. Specifically bullet point 3.

Original Text	My Translation
The quantity of matter is the measure of the same, arising from its density and bulk conjunctly.	Quantity of Mass arises from multiplication of density and volume. M = Q x V(density x volume)
Thus air of a double density, in a double space, is quadruple in quantity; in a triple space, sextuple in quantity. The same thing is to be understood of snow, and fine dust of powders, that are condensed by compression or liquefaction; and of all bodies that are by any causes whatever differently condensed. I have no regard in this place to a medium, if any such there is, that freely pervades the interstices between the parts of bodies. It is this quantity that I mean hereafter everywhere under the name of body or mass. And the same is known by the weight of each body; for it is proportional to the weight, as I have found by experiments on pendulums, very accurately made, which shall be shewn hereafter.	Therefore, air with double the density and double the volume will have quadruple the mass; triple the density and triple the volume will have sextuple of the mass. Same thing will occur with snow or gas that is liquified or condensed by compression, or any other matter that is condensed by any means. (I am not fully following the sentence, but I assume he is stating that the mass will remain the same?) I am assuming that there is no material that is escaping out of the volume in question. This quantity is what I will be referring to as body or mass. Similarly, this applies to the weight of the body which is proportional to the mass? (W=Mxg). I found this via accurate experiments on pendulums, which will be shown later.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Um...you do know that the original was not in English, right?

 

[berkeman]

Um...you do know that the original was not in English, right?

Quid est problema dude?

 

[fresh_42]

Quid est problema dude?

 

[berkeman]

Similarly, this applies to the weight of the body which is proportional to the mass? (W=Mxg). I found this via accurate experiments on pendulums, which will be shown later.

Please be sure to define all of your terms in your equations. What is this "x"?

Oh wait...

 

[Bystander]

Oh wait...

Getting punchy?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Quid est problema dude?

Semper ubi sub ubi!

 

[PencilPusher]

Um...you do know that the original was not in English, right?

Yep. It was in Latin. I am just reading the original translation for fun. It is hard to understand because it is old, I think it is 1729.

 

[PencilPusher]

Please be sure to define all of your terms in your equations. What is this "x"?

Oh wait...

View attachment 332805

Haha maybe I will find that proof later in his experiments with pendulums.

 

[Tom.G]

Your #3 is less restrictive than the original.
Your #1 has an embarrissingly significant math error that makes it invalid.

 

[Swamp Thing]

If you haven't already, you might enjoy checking out S. Chandrashekhar's Newton's Principia for the Common Reader.

 

[jtbell]

Have you seen Cohen and Whitman's modern translation of the Principia?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0520290887/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I'm on the road right now, so I can't quote their version of Definition I from my copy.

 

[fresh_42]

Yep. It was in Latin. I am just reading the original translation for fun. It is hard to understand because it is old, I think it is 1729.

1687. Newton was already dead in 1729.

Those old texts are hard to read and even harder to assess if you didn't have studied the subject really intensively beforehand. They used a completely different language, and I do not mean Latin.

"My modernization of ... Newton's Principia"

... is an extremely unfortunate thread title. Newton's book has been constantly modernized throughout the centuries, namely with every new generation studying it. It is what we now call the curriculum of mechanical physics. This means in return that every "improvement" - whether it is one or not - has already been made ever since. Moreover, such groundbreaking results like the Principia (or Euclid's Elements) are far more a historical document than a scientific treatise that needs "modernization". Hence, you can admit a lack of understanding, and I would be surprised if you hadn't those, but you can hardly "modernize" Newton.

 

[PencilPusher]

Have you seen Cohen and Whitman's modern translation of the Principia?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0520290887/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I'm on the road right now, so I can't quote their version of Definition I from my copy.

This is excellent. I was looking for something exactly like that!

 

[PencilPusher]

1687. Newton was already dead in 1729.

Those old texts are hard to read and even harder to assess if you didn't have studied the subject really intensively beforehand. They used a completely different language, and I do not mean Latin.

"My modernization of ... Newton's Principia"

... is an extremely unfortunate thread title. Newton's book has been constantly modernized throughout the centuries, namely with every new generation studying it. It is what we now call the curriculum of mechanical physics. This means in return that every "improvement" - whether it is one or not - has already been made ever since. Moreover, such groundbreaking results like the Principia (or Euclid's Elements) are far more a historical document than a scientific treatise that needs "modernization". Hence, you can admit a lack of understanding, and I would be surprised if you hadn't those, but you can hardly "modernize" Newton.

I agree, I think I went about it the wrong way. I am basically interested to read this original work just to understand how these theories were originally presented. I understand that modern books have perfected the interpretation of all the discoveries and can present them in clear and concise way. I am going to check out the suggested Cohen and Whitman's by jtbell.