[104] The familiar parallelogram of forces, of which earlier writers had had indistinct ideas, was clearly stated and proved in the introduction to the Principia, and was, by a curious coincidence, published also in the same year by Varignon and Lami.
[105] It is between 13 and 14 billion billion pounds. See chapter X. [§ 219].
[106] As far as I know Newton gives no short statement of the law in a perfectly complete and general form; separate parts of it are given in different passages of the Principia.
[107] It is commonly stated that Newton’s value of the motion of the moon’s apses was only about half the true value. In a scholium of the Principia to prop. 35 of the third book, given in the first edition but afterwards omitted, he estimated the annual motion at 40°, the observed value being about 41°. In one of his unpublished papers, contained in the Portsmouth collection, he arrived at 39° by a process which he evidently regarded as not altogether satisfactory.
[108] Throughout the Coppernican controversy up to Newton’s time it had been generally assumed, both by Coppernicans and by their opponents, that there was some meaning in speaking of a body simply as being “at rest” or “in motion,” without any reference to any other body. But all that we can really observe is the motion of one body relative to one or more others. Astronomical observation tells us, for example, of a certain motion relative to one another of the earth and sun; and this motion was expressed in two quite different ways by Ptolemy and by Coppernicus. From a modern standpoint the question ultimately involved was whether the motions of the various bodies of the solar system relatively to the earth or relatively to the sun were the simpler to express. If it is found convenient to express them—as Coppernicus and Galilei did—in relation to the sun, some simplicity of statement is gained by speaking of the sun as “fixed” and omitting the qualification “relative to the sun” in speaking of any other body. The same motions might have been expressed relatively to any other body chosen at will: e.g. to one of the hands of a watch carried by a man walking up and down on the deck of a ship on a rough sea; in this case it is clear that the motions of the other bodies of the solar system relative to this body would be excessively complicated; and it would therefore be highly inconvenient though still possible to treat this particular body as “fixed.”
A new aspect of the problem presents itself, however, when an attempt—like Newton’s—is made to explain the motions of bodies of the solar system as the result of forces exerted on one another by those bodies. If, for example, we look at Newton’s First Law of Motion (chapter VI., [§ 130]), we see that it has no meaning, unless we know what are the body or bodies relative to which the motion is being expressed; a body at rest relatively to the earth is moving relatively to the sun or to the fixed stars, and the applicability of the First Law to it depends therefore on whether we are dealing with its motion relatively to the earth or not. For most terrestrial motions it is sufficient to regard the Laws of Motion as referring to motion relative to the earth; or, in other words, we may for this purpose treat the earth as “fixed.” But if we examine certain terrestrial motions more exactly, we find that the Laws of Motion thus interpreted are not quite true; but that we get a more accurate explanation of the observed phenomena if we regard the Laws of Motion as referring to motion relative to the centre of the sun and to lines drawn from it to the stars; or, in other words, we treat the centre of the sun as a “fixed” point and these lines as “fixed” directions. But again when we are dealing with the solar system generally this interpretation is slightly inaccurate, and we have to treat the centre of gravity of the solar system instead of the sun as “fixed.”
From this point of view we may say that Newton’s object in the Principia was to shew that it was possible to choose a certain point (the centre of gravity of the solar system) and certain directions (lines joining this point to the fixed stars), as a base of reference, such that all motions being treated as relative to this base, the Laws of Motion and the law of gravitation afford a consistent explanation of the observed motions of the bodies of the solar system.
[109] He estimated the annual precession due to the sun to be about 9″, and that due to the moon to be about four and a half times as great, so that the total amount due to the two bodies came out about 50″, which agrees within a fraction of a second with the amount shewn by observation; but we know now that the moon’s share is not much more than twice that of the sun.
[110] He once told Halley in despair that the lunar theory “made his head ache and kept him awake so often that he would think of it no more.”
[111] December 31st, 1719, according to the unreformed calendar (O.S.) then in use in England.