51012603

How does Newton define motion? What is the background for his definition, and what arguments does he use to support it? In this essay I will be looking at what motion means for Isaac Newton. I will go about this firstly by defining what he means by the term motion. This section will take in what Newton means by absolute and relative space and time which provide the necessary grounding for understanding what he means by motion which he distinguishes between the absolute and relative varieties of. Next I will be looking at the background to this definition. In this section I will be looking at what Newton is reacting to for this informs the way in which he speaks about motion. This section seeks to elucidate the motivation behind his explanations of motion and by looking at this motivation I am confident that a greater understanding of Newtons conception of motion will come to the fore. Finally I will be looking at how Newton supports this idea of motion. This section will get into the arguments which Newton uses to justify his conception of motion and it will be seen that this argumentation can only be fully understood along with the background to his conception as explored in the second section of this essay. The primary source I will be relying on for Newtons views is the Scholium section of the Principia. I will also be taking in elements of De Gravitatione in the second section of this essay. Now then let us proceed to the definition of motion. Newtons definition of motion distinguishes two types of motion: absolute and relative motion. His definition of these is simply that: Absolute motion is the translation of a body from one absolute place into another; and relative motion, the translation from one relative place into another (Rynasiewicx 2012b). This difference between absolute and relative motions requires some further points to

fully elucidate its meaning. To fully understand what Newton means by motion it is necessary for us to understand the context of these different types of motions and with this in mind we must look at what he understands by Absolute and Relative space and Absolute and Relative Time. By showing what Newton means by these my aim is to give a fuller understanding of what he understands by motion. Let us first take what he means by space. Newton distinguishes in his work between absolute space and relative space. As we shall see in the second section of this essay this is a critical distinction and very important in understanding the intention of Newtons Principia in general and the Scholium in particular. So what is relative space and what is absolute space? Relative space is the space we observe and interact with. Absolute space is independent of matter. It can be thought of as the container of matter. (Rynasiewicx 2012b). Now let us turn to the difference between relative time and absolute time. Relative time is the time we interact with in our lives. It is the time we measure by observation of the world around us. Relative time is what we are measuring when we look at the sun or the rotation of the earth or the rotation of the stars. By measuring the rate of change of these elements we make a convention of time: a relative system by which we can measure the passing of time. Absolute time on the other hand is time itself separate from all body and matter. Absolute time is the continuous stream of time that progresses at the same rate irrelevant of any change in matter or observers. So then, relative time is the time we interact with by observation whereas absolute time is the passing of time aside from any change or event. Absolute time is not accessible to us. We can only access time in the form of the change and motion we observe in the universe (Rynasiewicx 2012b).

In light of these concepts what is the fuller picture of motion for Newton? Relative motions are the motions we observe and we use these to form our concept of time which is of course relative. They are determined by looking at how a motion relates to other motions so for example I am at relative rest with relation to the Earth whereas I am in relative motion with reference to the sun and the moon. Relative motion, then, is based on relation to other bodies. Absolute motion on the other hand occurs with reference to absolute space. It cannot be observed for to do so we would have to know how we relate to absolute space, a piece of knowledge that we lack (Rynasiewicx 2012b). One more feature of absolute motion is that encapsulated in the law of inertia: unless interfered with a body in absolute motion will continue in this motion ad infinitum (Rynasiewicx 2012a). Having given Newtons definition of motion I would like, in the proceeding section, to turn to the background of this understanding of motion. This background will look at two men and their work and how they affected Newton for better or worse. These are, of course, Galileo and Descartes. Firstly let us look at the role played by Galileo in the background of Newtons thought. His role was, in general, a positive one. His big contribution which we are here concerned with is, to use anachronistic terminology, his principle of relativity (Barbour 2001). Galileo proposed a set of experiments to be carried out on a ship: the first when it is stationary and the second when it is in uniform motion. He informs us that the results are the same in both cases. There are a couple of poignant points which come of this. The first is the discovery of a dynamic symmetry: the experiments could be carried out under different conditions, in this case varying motions, but the results remain the same. The second point of note is that when one

is in a state of uniform motion it is imperceptible. The latter point here is the principle of relativity and its implications are grand (Barbour 2001). Next we come to Descartes who played a considerable part in the background of Newtons thought though his influence was of a generally negative character. He influenced Newton more by contrast than complement. Descartes historical role in this background is complicated. His views in The World are much more in line with Newtons thought than his views in Principles of Philosophy but it is the latter that he published and to which Newton reacted. In the intervening time between The World and Principles Descartes had become concerned about what Rome would think of his new work given Galileos troubles so he suppressed the book and reworked his views in order to make them acceptable to the Church (Barbour 2001). The latter work is the Principles and so it is to the inorganically evolved form of his thought that Newton reacts to. It seems to me that, in order to understand the full extent to which Newton reacted to Descartes, a fuller picture of his thought in the Principles is called for. As some of its main points are elucidated the contrast with Newtons thought will be pronounced. The first important point about Descartes conception is that on his account there is no absolute space (Rynasiewicx 2012a). Rather his is a universe consisting solely of matter. Absolute space, so key to Newtons understanding of motion, is ruled out by Descartes as a logical impossibility. He says it is impossible for there to be space because there can be no motion in a vacuum it is as absurd for him as a mountain without valleys (Barbour 2001). Instead for Descartes there is only matter. Rather than having space as the container of matter for Descartes matter is the whole of the story. This universe of matter is called the plenum. Another point related to this one is Descartes contention that the only property of

matter is extension (Barbour 2001). This point is related to the above: the universe is all matter and the property of matter is extension. With this Descartes replaces the notion of positions in space with position relative to other matter. Now onto the crucial part of Descartes system: his theory of motion. In this universe of matter with positions only relative to other matter how does motion work? In Descartes system all motions are relative. He distinguishes, however, between three types of relative motions (Huggett and Hoefer 2009). The first type he distinguishes is change of place. This is motion relative to some arbitrary reference body. The second is the common usage of motion which is that something is itself moving. The third type he distinguishes is true motion. This he defined as the motion of a body relative to contiguous matter. Of course in Descartes system the universe is all matter and so all bodies are contiguous to matter. While this last type of motion is privileged as true motion it is still a type of relative motion. Descartes takes these points together to make his vortex theory of planetary motion. In this theory the planets are relatively at rest with respect to the subtle matter of the celestial vortex of the sun. Using his definition of true motion, as being with respect to contiguous bodies, the planets, in this relative rest with respect to the subtle matter of the plenum, have no true motion. His motives for this may not have been completely genuine and perhaps have to do with the aforementioned fear of trouble with Rome. Regardless of this he defends this view of the rest of the planets. As we shall see in the next section this is not an altogether coherent conception. This concludes my overview of the background to Newtons understanding of motion. In the proceeding section I will be turning to the arguments which Newtons invokes in support of this understanding.

As Rynasiewicx (Rynasiewicx 2012a) notes there has been a culture of misunderstanding relating to Newtons intentions in the Scholium. It has been read as if Newton were trying to prove the existence of absolute motion but this is a flawed understanding. From Newtons De Gravitatione, which contains all the germs of the Scholium, Newton is seen to be explicitly arguing against Descartes arguments against absolute space (Rynasiewicx 2012a). Many of the arguments which we shall look at in this third section of this essay were already to be found in this work written some decade or so before his Principia. So if we understand Newtons intention as arguing for the existence of absolute space and not absolute motion in the Scholium the context of his arguments and his intention become much clearer. Newtons arguments for his understanding of motion can be divided into two categories: metaphysical and epistemological (Rynasiewicx 2012a). The metaphysical arguments consist in five arguments from properties, causes and effects. He uses these arguments to support his case that absolute space exists and not, as has commonly been assumed, to give empirical grounds of absolute motion. The epistemological argument speaks about the possibility of knowing true motion using the two globes example (Rynasiewicx 2012a). The first three of the five metaphysical arguments are arguments from properties of motion and rest (Rynasiewicx 2012b). The first of these properties is that for bodies to be truly at rest they must be at rest relative to each other. In this argument he looks at the possibility of judging a body to be at rest with respect to a far off body based on bodies in its vicinity. He concludes that true rest cannot be determined by comparing position with bodies in the vicinity. The second of these arguments deals with the property that if a part of a body is in a fixed relation to the body and the body moves then the part of the body partakes in this movement. This

argument states that if a group of bodies are all moved by the same force then though they stay in relative rest to each other they have still partaken in motion since all of them can be seen as parts of one body. The conclusion Newton draws from this arguments is that, contra Descartes, true motion cannot be conceived as motion relative to bodies in the immediate vicinity since in a case such as this it would deny the occurrence of movement. The third argument from properties argues that if something is in a moving place it moves along with that place and as it moves relatively away from that place it partakes in movement of that place. For Newton this means that if a place is moving relative to another place then the movement of that other place must be added and if that other place is also in motion relative to yet another place then that places motion too must also be added. This regress continues onto infinity or else it ends with motion relative to a stationary place. The conclusion Newton draws from this property is that the absolute motion of a body cannot be determined except with respect to a body at rest. These then are the three arguments from properties (Rynasiewicx 2012b). Next is Newtons argument from causes. This argument distinguishes between the causes of relative and absolute motion. By distinguishing between the cause of these Newton argues implicitly against Descartes contention that true or absolute motion is a special case of relative motion. The argument here comes in two parts. The preamble to these points is the law of inertia, shared by both Newton and Descartes, that if a body is in absolute motion then it will continue in this motion ad infinitum unless a force acts upon it. To disrupt an absolute motion a force must act on that body. The first point he makes can be illustrated by taking a body which is at absolute rest with no forces acting upon it. Now if we take other bodies to which we relate this body and we apply a force to these bodies so that they are at rest relative to

each other but they are in motion relative to our original body. Now the original body which is in absolute rest is simultaneously in relative motion because the bodies which it is being compared with are in motion relative to it. So here we see that relative motion does not require a force to act upon it but only on the bodies to which it is being compared. So a force need not act on a body to set it in relative motion. The second point in this case is to take a set of bodies and apply the same force to all of them. The bodies in this case, though they have had a force acted upon them, are at relative rest with respect to each other. Thus, even though a force has been applied, there is no relative motion (Rynasiewicx 2012b). The final of the five arguments is the argument from effects. Here Newton is speaking about the forces of centrifugal endeavour which distinguish relative from absolute motion. In this argument Newton introduces the rotating bucket experiment. The set up for this experiment involves taking a bucket and attaching it to a length of cord. Next the bucket is filled up with water. Then the bucket is twisted and twisted until the cord is strongly twisted and then the bucket is released. What one observes is that, at first, as the bucket turns with the uncoiling of the cord, the water inside the bucket stays flat as it was. At this stage of the experiment a number of remarks can be made. The first is that when the bucket first starts turning it is in swift relative motion to the observer. On the other the water which stays flat in the bucket is relatively at rest with respect to the observer and thus also in relative motion with respect to the bucket. What we can take from these remarks is that the existence of centrifugal endeavour in the parts of a body, in this case the water, is not necessary for the body, in this case the bucket, to be in relative rotational motion (Rynasiewicx 2012b).

As the experiment progresses, the bucket continues to turn the water begins to recede from the axis of rotation and to climb the walls of the bucket. As well as this the surface of the water becomes concave in the centre. The water then stops climbing the bucket and remains at the same level against the side of the bucket. The water has now fully acquired the rotation of the bucket. The first remark to be made here is that the water is now at rest with reference to the bucket and in rotational motion with reference to the observer. The fact that the water has stopped climbing the walls though the bucket continues to spin indicates it has reached the maximum of its centrifugal endeavour. From these we can say that just because of the presence of centrifugal endeavour in a part of a body it does not mean that the body is in relative circular motion with reference to its surroundings. This then is the bucket experiment in detail but I will now be looking at its greater consequences, in combination with the foregoing arguments from properties and causes, for Newton (Rynasiewicx 2012b). Following these arguments in the Scholium Newton consolidates these points into what can be read as a counterargument to the Cartesian conception of space and motion. Specifically he can be read as attacking the vortex theory of planetary motion as outlined above. Descartes claims that all the planets are relatively at rest but this is observably not the case. From the first of the arguments we have it that since the planets are in motion relative to each other then they cannot be at rest for to be at rest they must be at rest with respect to each other. Taking the second argument from properties we have it that the planets must partake in the circular motion of the solar vortex. Finally taking the argument from effects, the rotating bucket experiment, we have it that because they partake in the circular motion of the solar vortex they should have an endeavour to recede from the axis of rotation. Thus

Descartes is wrong in asserting that the Earth is at rest and thus his theory of true motion is false (Rynasiewicx 2012a). Next Newton turns to the epistemological element of his theory. The question here is what can we know about absolute motions given that we cannot directly observe them as we are not in absolute rest and so are unable to judge the absoluteness of the motions we observe? For starters we can observe relative motions which are the differences between absolute motions. We also have evidence of forces which are the causes and effects of absolute motions. It is on this point that Newton invokes his famous two globes experiment. In this experiment he entreats us to imagine two globes in a remote area of space with nothing else to serve as a reference point. These two globes are connected by a cord and they are engaged in circular rotation. Even without reference points we can determine the quantity of the rotation by the tension in the cord created by the centrifugal endeavours of the respective globes. Also, by applying a force to this side or that side of the globe, we are able to determine whether the globes are rotating clockwise or counter clockwise by the presence of increased or decreased tension in the cords. Building on this example, Newton asks us to imagine a further two bodies being added to the equation. These bodies are remote from the globes as the stars are from us. Now we have the problem of determining which of the systems of bodies is rotating. We can determine this, Newton tells us, by the tension in the cord. Then knowing that it is the globes that are in motion we are able to determine in another manner whether the globes are rotating clockwise or counter clockwise. This is the two globes experiment (Rynasiewicx 2012b). These then are the arguments which Newton invokes in favour of his understanding of motion. As I have shown these arguments are best understood as a reaction to the Cartesian background. We also see that he has incorporated the

relativity principle of Galileo into his understanding. What Ive tried to show in the course of this essay is what exactly Newton is talking about when he is dealing with motion. We have also looked at the background to this understanding and how this background informed Newtons understanding. Finally we have seen what arguments Newton used to support his understanding. In conclusion Newtons definition of motion is best understood in contrast to Descartes. He was not a random occurrence in history but his work was built on the shoulders of the tradition of natural philosophy.

Bibliography Barbour, J.B. 2001. The Discovery of Dynamics (Oxford University Press, 2001), sections 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 11.3 and 12.5 Huggett, N. and Hoefer, C. 2009. Absolute and Relational Theories of Space and Motion, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/spacetime-theories/>. Rynasiewicx, R. 2012a. 'Newton's Views on Space, Time and Motion', The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-stm/> Rynasiewicx, R. 2012b. 'Newton's Views on Space, Time and Motion', The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, <including the text of the Scholium, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-stm/scholium.html>