Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:34:41.674Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mechanics and the Royal Society, 1668-70

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

A. Rupert Hall
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Apart from statics, about which I shall say nothing, there were three chief centres of interest in mechanics in the 1660's:

(1) the motions of pendulums;

(2) the laws of motion;

(3) the free fall of heavy bodies and the motion of projectiles.

In the first the influence of Huygens was dominant; I have placed it so because it was of very lively contemporary concern. The second area of interest descended partly from Galileo and partly from Descartes; the third from Galileo alone. Perhaps one should consider adding a fourth area, the investigation of central forces, but this in fact did not attract much attention as yet.

Type
Research Article
Information
The British Journal for the History of Science , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , June 1966 , pp. 24 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © British Society for the History of Science 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Birch, , History, i, 7 (19 December 1660)Google Scholar, 22 (8 May 1661), 46 (25 September 1661), 54 (20 November 1661).

Old style dates are used throughout this paper, as in Birch.

2 See Ibid., 54 (20 November 1661), 75 (5 February 1661/2).

3 Ibid., 70–74.

4 Ibid., 124 (12 November 1662), 192 (4 February 1662/3), 195–7 (18 February 1662/3).

5 Descartes's fourth rule of impact (Principia philosophiae, 2e Partie, xlix).

6 Birch, , History, i, 449Google Scholar, 455–456, 461, 464, 466–467.

7 Ibid., 480, 508.

8 Phil. Trans., No. 16 (6 August 1666), 264.

9 Ibid., 268, 282.

10 Birch, , History, ii, 90–92.Google Scholar Oldenburg's attention was caught by this paper, about which he wrote at length to Boyle. Is it possible that Hooke discouraged its printing in Phil. Trans.? And what effect would it have had if printed?

11 See e.g. Dugas, René, La Mécanique au XVIIe Siècle (Neufchâtel, 1954), 284–287.Google Scholar

12 Hall, A. Rupert and Hall, Marie Boas, The Correspondence of Henry Oldenburg (hereafter cited as Correspondence of Oldenburg) Madison, Wisconsin, 1966, ii, 541, 550, 561–562, 575.Google Scholar

13 Birch, , History, ii, 116, 117, 140, 275.Google Scholar

14 Ibid., 315. Oldenburg to Huygens, 26 October, Oldenburg to Wren, 29 October, Huygens to Oldenburg, 3 November and Wren to Oldenburg of the same date will be found in Correspondence of Oldenburg, v.

15 Birch, , History, ii, 320.Google Scholar

16 Correspondence of Oldenburg, v. It was printed in Phil. Trans., no. 43 (11 January 1668/9), 864–866.

17 Birch, , History, ii, 126.Google Scholar

18 Newton, , Opticks, Query 31 (5th edn., London, 1931, 398).Google Scholar

19 Birch, , History, ii, 328Google Scholar; Wallis to Oldenburg, 3 December 1668. Wallis declared himself at this stage undecided about the conservation of motion.

20 Ibid., ii, 335. As is well known, Wren's scientific work is shrouded in mystery, and many assertions about it unfortunately cannot now be verified. For example, even his plan for the projected College of the Royal Society in the Strand is only conjecturally identifiable now. Such associates of Wren as Sir Paul Neile (c. 1613–86), his son William (1637–70) and Lawrence Rooke (1622–62) are even less well known at present.

21 Huygens, Christiaan, Oeuvres Complètes, vi, 295, 335.Google Scholar

22 Ibid., vi, 336–343, 345.

23 Ibid., ii, 115, quoted by Dugas, 286.

24 Oeuvres Complètes, vi, 354.

25 It is reprinted in ibid., vi, 383–385.

26 Birch, , History, ii, 335, 337, 338–339.Google Scholar It is well known that Newton had difficulties with this question of the flow of water from a reservoir (cf. Principia, 1st. edn. Book II, Prop. 37, and 3rd edn. Book II, Prop. 36. See also Hall, A. Rupert, “Correcting the Principia”, Osiris, xiii (1958), 291–326).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Royal Society Classified Papers, vol. iii (1), no. 54.

28 Royal Society MS. W3, no. 30.

29 Oldenburg's annotation on the document noted in note 27; see also Birch, , History, ii, 381, 392.Google Scholar

30 Royal Society Classified Papers, vol. iii (1), no. 44.

31 Wallis to Oldenburg, 21 March 1666/7, Neile to Oldenburg, 18 December [1668]; see Correspondence of Oldenburg, iii, 373Google Scholar, and v (in press). It is difficult to dispute the date of the former letter.

32 Royal Society Classified Papers, vol. iii (1), no. 48. This paper is in Oldenburg's hand, and endorsed (without date) “Mr. Neile's Principles of Philosophy”.

33 Neile to Oldenburg, 18 December 1668 and 2 January 1668/9.

34 Wallis to Oldenburg, 3 December 1668 and 21 December 1668.

* This paper was originally read to the seminar on the history and philosophy of mathematics organized by Dr. J. G. Whitrow and Dr. C. Tanner at the Imperial College of Science and Technology, London. In discussion, Dr. D. T. Whiteside called attention to Newton's unpublished early work on percussion; however, I have not attempted to explore this as it had no effect upon the public discussion described above.