subject was his investigation, published in 1673, of the motion
of a rigid pendulum of any form. This is the earliest example of
a theoretical investigation of the rotation of rigid bodies. It
involved the adoption of a point of view as to the relation between
the motions of bodies of different forms, which practically
amounted to a perception of the principle of energy as applied to
the case in question.
We owe to Newton (1642–1727) the consolidation of the views
which were current in his time into one coherent and universal
system, sometimes called the Galileo-Newton theory,
but commonly known as the “laws of motion”; and the demonstration of the fact that the motions
of the celestial bodies could be included in this theory by means
Galileo-Newton
Theory.
of the law of universal gravitation. A full account of his results
was first published in the Principia in 1687.
Such statements as that a body moves in a straight line, and that it has a certain velocity, have no meaning unless the base, relative to which the motion is to be reckoned, is defined. Accordingly, in the extension of Galileo’s results for the purpose of a universal theory, the establishment of a suitable base of reference is the first step to be taken. Newton assumed the possibility of choosing a base such that, relatively to it, the motion of any particle would have only such divergence from uniform velocity in a straight line as could be expressed by laws of acceleration dependent on its relation to other bodies. He used the term “absolute motion” for motion relative to such a base. Many writers on the subject distinguish such a base as “fixed.” The name “Newtonian base” will be used in this article. Assuming such a base to exist, Newton admitted at the outset the difficulty of identifying it, but pointed out that the key to the situation might be found in the identification of forces; that is to say, in the mutual character of laws of acceleration as applied to any given body and any other by whose presence its motion is influenced. In this connexion he took an important step by distinguishing clearly the character of “mass” as a universal property of bodies distinct from weight.
There can be no doubt that the development of correct views as to mass was closely connected with the results of experiments with regard to the collision of hard bodies. Suppose two small smooth spherical bodies which can be regarded as particles to be brought into collision, so that the velocity of each, relative to any base which is unaffected by the collision, is suddenly changed. The additions of velocity which the two bodies receive respectively, relative to such a base, are in opposite directions, and if the bodies are alike their magnitudes are equal. If the bodies though of the same substance are of different sizes, the magnitudes of the additions of velocity are found to be inversely proportional to the volumes of the bodies. But if the bodies are of different substances, say one of iron and the other of gold, the ratio of these magnitudes is found to depend upon something else besides bulk. A given volume of gold is found to count for this purpose for about two and a half times as much as the same volume of iron. This is expressed by saying that the density of gold is about two and a half times that of iron. In fact, experiments upon the changes of velocity of bodies, due to a mutual influence between them, bring to light a property of bodies which may be specified by a quantity proportional to their volumes in the case of bodies which are perceived by other tests to be of one homogeneous substance, but otherwise involving also another factor.
The product of the volume and density of a body measures what is called its “mass.” The mass of a body is often loosely defined as the measure of the quantity of matter in it. This definition correctly indicates that the mass of any portion of matter is equal to the sum of the masses of its parts, and that the masses of bodies alike in other respects are equal, but gives no test for comparison of the masses of bodies of different substances; this test is supplied only by a comparison of motions. When, as in the case of contact, a mutual relation is perceived between the motions of two particles, the changes of velocity are in opposite directions, and the ratio of their magnitudes determines the ratio of the masses of the particles; the motion being reckoned relative to any base which is unaffected by the change. It is found that this gives a consistent result; that is to say, if by an experiment with two particles A and B we get the ratio of their masses, and by an experiment with B and a third particle C we get the ratio of the masses of B and C, and thus the ratio of the masses of A and C, we should get the same ratio by a direct experiment with A and C. For the numerical measure of mass that of some standard body is chosen as a unit, and the masses of other bodies are obtained by comparison with this. Masses of terrestrial bodies are generally compared by weighing; this is found by experiment to give a correct result, but it is applicable only in the neighbourhood of the earth. Familiar cases can readily be found of the perception of the mass of bodies, independently of their tendency to fall towards the earth. The mass of any portion of matter is found to be permanent under chemical and other changes, and this fact adds to its importance as a physical quantity. The study of the structure of atoms has suggested a connexion of mass with electrical phenomena which implies its dependence on motion; but this is not inconsistent with the observed fact of its practical constancy, to a high degree of accuracy, for bodies composed of atoms.
The Galileo-Newton theory of motion is that, relative to a
suitably chosen base, and with suitable assignments of mass, all
accelerations of particles are made up of mutual (so-called)
actions between pairs of particles, whereby the two particles
forming a pair have accelerations in opposite directions in the
line joining them, of magnitudes inversely proportional to their
masses. The total acceleration of any particle is that obtained
by the superposition of the component accelerations derived from
its association with the other particles of the system severally
in accordance with this law. The mutual action between two
particles is specified by means of a directed quantity to which the
term “force” is appropriated. A force is said to act upon each
of two particles forming a pair, its magnitude being the product
of mass and component acceleration of the particle on which it
acts, and its direction that of this component acceleration. Thus
each mutual action is associated with a pair of equal forces in
opposite directions. Instead of the operation of superposing
accelerations, we may compound the several forces acting on a
particle by the parallelogram law (see Mechanics) into what may
be called the resultant force, the total acceleration of the particle
being the same as if this alone acted. The theory depends for its
verification and application upon the fact that forces can be
identified and classified. They can be recognized by Application
of the
Theory.
their reciprocal character, and it is found to be
possible to connect them by permanent laws with the
recognizable physical characteristics of the systems in which they
occur. A generalization of Galileo’s results takes the form that
under constant conditions of this kind, force (defined in terms of
motion) is constant, and that the superposition of two sets of
conditions, if their independence can be secured, results in superposition
of the forces associated with them separately. Particular
laws of force may be suggested by a study of the simplest
cases in which they are manifested, and from them results may
be obtained by calculation as to the motions of systems of
any given structure. Such results may be tested by direct
observation.
It should be noted that, within a limited range of application to terrestrial mechanics, the most convenient way of attacking the question of the relations of forces to the physical conditions of their occurrence may be by balancing their several effects in producing motion; thus avoiding in the first instance both the choice of a base and the consideration of Statics. mass. This procedure is useful as a preliminary step in the study of the subject. It does not, however, afford a convenient starting-point for a general theory, because it is apt to involve some confusion of phenomena which, from the point of view of the Galileo-Newton theory, are distinct in character.
Newton’s law of gravitation affords the most notable example of the process of verification of a law of force, and incidentally of the Galileo-Newton theory. As a law of acceleration of the planets relatively to the sun, its approximate agreement with
