On the Philosophy of Discovery, Chapters Historical and Critical

by William Whewell

But these modes of explanation, by means of the centripetal and centrifugal forces and their relation, are not necessary to Newton's doctrine, and are nowhere used by Newton; and undoubtedly much confusion has been produced in other minds, as well as Hegel's, by speaking of the centrifugal force, which is a mere intrinsic geometrical result of a body's curvilinear motion round a center, in conjunction with centripetal force, which is an extrinsic force, acting upon the body and urging it to the center. Neither Newton, nor any intelligent Newtonian, ever spoke of the centripetal and centrifugal force as two distinct forces both extrinsic to the motion, which Hegel accuses them of doing. (n)

I have spoken of the third and second of Kepler's laws; of Newton's explanations of them, and of Hegel's criticism. Let us now, in the same manner, consider the first law, that the planets move in ellipses. Newton's proof that this was the result of a central force varying inversely as the square of the distance, was the solution of a problem at which his contemporaries had laboured in vain, and is commonly looked upon as an important step. "But," says Hegel, (d) "the proof gives a conic section generally, whereas the main point which ought to be proved is, that the path of the body is an ellipse only, not a circle or any other conic section." Certainly if Newton had proved that a planet cannot move in a circle, (which Hegel says he ought to have done), his system would have perplexed astronomers, since there are planets which move in orbits hardly distinguishable from circles, and the variation of the extremity from planet to planet shows that there is nothing to prevent the excentricity vanishing and the orbit becoming a circle.

"But," says Hegel again, (e) "the conditions which make the path to be an ellipse rather than any other conic section, are empirical and extraneous;—the supposed casual strength of the impulsion originally received." Certainly the circumstances which determine the amount of excentricity of a planet's orbit are derived from experience, or rather, observation. It is not a part of Newton's system to determine à priori what the excentricity of a planet's orbit must be. A system that professes to do this will undoubtedly be one very different from his. And as our knowledge of the excentricity is derived from observation, it is, in that sense, empirical and casual. The strength of the original impulsion is a hypothetical and impartial way of expressing this result of observation. And as we see no reason why the excentricity should be of any certain magnitude, we see none why the fraction which expresses the excentricity should not become as large as unity, that is, why the orbit should not become a parabola; and accordingly, some of the bodies which revolve about the same appear to move in orbits of this form: so little is the motion in an ellipse, as Hegel says, (f) "the only thing to be proved."

But Hegel himself has offered proof of Kepler's laws, to which, considering his objections to Newton's proofs, we cannot help turning with some curiosity.

And first, let us look at the proof of the Proposition which we have been considering, that the path of a planet is necessarily an ellipse. I will translate Hegel's language as well as I can; but without answering for the correctness of my translation, since it does not appear to me to conform to the first condition of translation, of being intelligible. The translation however, such as it is, may help us to form some opinion of the validity and value of Hegel's proofs as compared with Newton's. (r)

"For absolutely uniform motion, the circle is the only path.... The circle is the line returning into itself in which all the radii are equal; there is, for it, only one determining quantity, the radius.

"But in free motion, the determination according to space and to time come into view with differences. There must be a difference in the spatial aspect in itself, and therefore the form requires two determining quantities. Hence the form of the path returning into itself is an ellipse."

Now even if we could regard this as reasoning, the conclusion does not in the smallest degree follow. A curve returning into itself and determined by two quantities, may have innumerable forms besides the ellipse; for instance, any oval form whatever, besides that of the conic section.

But why must the curve be a curve returning into itself? Hegel has professed to prove this previously (m) from "the determination of particularity and individuality of the bodies in general, so that they have partly a center in themselves, and partly at the same time their center in another." Without seeking to find any precise meaning in this, we may ask whether it proves the impossibility of the orbits with moveable apses, (which do not return into themselves,) such as the planets (affected by perturbations) really do describe, and such as we know that bodies must describe in all cases, except when the force varies exactly as the square of the distance? It appears to do so: and it proves this impossibility of known facts at least as much as it proves anything.

Let us now look at Hegel's proof of Kepler's second law, that the elliptical sectors swept by the radius vector are proportional to the time. It is this: (s).