On the Philosophy of Discovery, Chapters Historical and Critical

by William Whewell

"The Newtonian formula may be derived from the Keplerian law." And the Keplerian law may be derived, and was derived, from the observations of the Greek astronomers and their successors; but was not the less a new and great discovery on that account.

But let us see what he says further of this derivation of the Newtonian "formula" from the Keplerian Law. It is evident that by calling it a formula, he means to imply, what he also asserts, that it is no new law, but only a new form (and a bad one) of a previously known truth.

How is the Newtonian "formula," that is, the law of the inverse squares of the central force, derived from the Keplerian law of the cubes of the distances proportional to the squares of the times? This, says Hegel, is the "immediate derivation." (c).—By Kepler's law, A being the distance and T the periodic time, A³/T² is constant. But Newton calls A/T² universal gravitation; whence it easily follows that gravitation is inversely as A².

This is Hegel's way of representing Newton's proof. Reading it, any one who had never read the Principia might suppose that Newton defined gravitation to be A/T². We, who have read the Principia, know that Newton proves that in circles, the central force (not the universal gravitation) is as A/T²: that he proves this, by setting out from the idea of force, as that which deflects a body from the tangent, and makes it describe a curved line: and that in this way, he passes from Kepler's laws of mere motion to his own law of Force.

But Hegel does not see any value in this. Such a mode of treating the subject he says (i) "offers to us a tangled web, formed of the Lines of the mere geometrical construction, to which a physical meaning of independent forces is given." That a measure of forces is found in such lines as the sagitta of the arc described in a given time, (not such a meaning arbitrarily given to them,) is certainly true, and is very distinctly proved in Newton, and in all our elementary books.

But, says Hegel, as further showing the artificial nature of the Newtonian formulæ, (h) "Analysis has long been able to derive the Newtonian expression and the laws therewith connected out of the Form of the Keplerian Laws;" an assertion, to verify which he refers to Francœur's Mécanique. This is apparently in order to show that the "lines" of the Newtonian construction are superfluous. We know very well that analysis does not always refer to visible representations of such lines: but we know too, (and Francœur would testify to this also,) that the analytical proofs contain equivalents to the Newtonian lines. We, in this place, are too familiar with the substitution of analytical for geometrical proofs, to be led to suppose that such a substitution affects the substance of the truth proved. The conversion of Newton's geometrical proofs of his discoveries into analytical processes by succeeding writers, has not made them cease to be discoveries: and accordingly, those who have taken the most prominent share in such a conversion, have been the most ardent admirers of Newton's genius and good fortune.

So much for Newton's comparison of the Forces in different circular orbits, and for Hegel's power of understanding and criticising it. Now let us look at the motion in different parts of the same elliptical orbit, as a further illustration of the value of Hegel's criticism. In an elliptical orbit the velocity alternately increases and diminishes. This follows necessarily from Kepler's law of the equal description of the areas, and so Newton explains it. Hegel, however, treats of this acceleration and retardation as a separate fact, and talks of another explanation of it, founded upon Centripetal and Centrifugal Force (o). Where he finds this explanation, I know not; certainly not in Newton, who in the second and third section of the Principia explains the variation of the velocity in a quite different manner, as I have said; and nowhere, I think, employs centrifugal force in his explanations. However, the notion of centrifugal as acting along with centripetal force is introduced in some treatises, and may undoubtedly be used with perfect truth and propriety. How far Hegel can judge when it is so used, we may see from what he says of the confusion produced by such an explanation, which is, he says, a maximum. In the first place, he speaks of the motion being uniformly accelerated and retarded in an elliptical orbit, which, in any exact use of the word uniformly, it is not. But passing by this, he proceeds to criticise an explanation, not of the variable velocity of the body in its orbit, but of the alternate access and recess of the body to and from the center. Let us overlook this confusion also, and see what is the value of his criticism on the explanation. He says (p), "according to this explanation, in the motion of a planet from the aphelion to the perihelion, the centrifugal is less than the centripetal force; and in the perihelion itself the centripetal force is supposed suddenly to become greater than the centrifugal;" and so, of course, the body re-ascends to the aphelion.

Now I will not say that this explanation has never been given in a book professing to be scientific; but I have never seen it given; and it never can have been given but by a very ignorant and foolish person. It goes upon the utterly unmechanical supposition that the approach of a body to the center at any moment depends solely upon the excess of the centripetal over the centrifugal force; and reversely. But the most elementary knowledge of mechanics shows us that when a body is moving obliquely to the distance from the center, it approaches to or recedes from the center in virtue of this obliquity, even if no force at all act. And the total approach to the center is the approach due to this cause, plus the approach due to the centripetal force, minus the recess due to the centrifugal force. At the aphelion, the centripetal is greater than the centrifugal force; and hence the motion becomes oblique; and then, the body approaches to the center on both accounts, and approaches on account of the obliquity of the path even when the centrifugal has become greater than the centripetal force, which it becomes before the body reaches the perihelion. This reasoning is so elementary, that when a person who cannot see this, writes on the subject with an air of authority, I do not see what can be done but to point out the oversight and leave it.

But there is, says Hegel (q), another way of explaining the motion by means of centripetal and centrifugal forces. The two forces are supposed to increase and decrease gradually, according to different laws. In this case, there must be a point where they are equal, and in equilibrio; and this being the case, they will always continue equal, for there will be no reason for their going out of equilibrium.

This, which is put as another mode of explanation, is, in fact, the same mode; for, as I have already said, the centrifugal force, which is less than the centripetal at the aphelion, becomes the greater of the two before the perihelion; and there is an intermediate position, at which the two forces are equal. But at this point, is there no reason why, being equal, the forces should become unequal? Reason abundant: for the body, being there, moves in a line oblique to the distance, and so changes its distance; and the centripetal and centrifugal force, depending upon the distance by different laws, they forthwith become unequal.