sci.physics.electromag

On Mar 27, 7:53=A0pm, maxwell wrote:
> On Mar 24, 6:17=A0pm, Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > On Mar 24, 12:09=A0am, maxwell wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 23, 6:21=A0pm, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote=
:
>
> > > > I read it cover to cover. Newton published -Princiipia- using
> > > > traditional geometric language because his calculus methods were
> > > > relatively unknown to his target audience. He invented calculus to t=
alk
> > > > about motion. Calculus is the language of motion. He could not have
> > > > formulated his physics without calculus.
>
> > > > It turns out the later developments of classical mechanics required =
the
> > > > least action principle and the calculus of variations to be stated. =
See
> > > > the works of Jacobi, Lagrange and Hamilton.
>
> > > > Bob Kolker
>
> > > Wrong again, Bob. =A0Calculus was not 'relatively' unknown by Newton's=

> > > contemporaries - it was totally unknown, since Newton wished to keep
> > > his 'secret weopon' to himself. =A0
>
> > As usual with most of your writings, you are sadly misinformed.
>
> > Leibnitz independently developed many ideas of calculus as early as
> > 1674, and used well-developed methods of calculus, expressed in his
> > own, superior notation, in correspondence with other mathematicians
> > starting around 1677.
>
> > Newton's Principia Mathematica was published in 1687.
>
> > Jerry
>
> Sorry to disappoint you, Jerry. =A0But one of my sources ("Greatest
> Feuds in Science" H. Hellman) reports on the 'clash of titans' as
> follows.
> Newton had developed the fundamental theorem of the calculus by 1665 &
> his fluxions by 1666. In 1676 Leibniz visited London & met Collins who
> showed him (without permission) Newton's unpublished papers one
> evening ("Never at Rest" R. Westfall pp. 260-267). Leibniz soon after
> received two letters from Newton. Newton began his main work on the
> Principia around 1684 when Leibniz first started to publish his papers
> on the calculus, without any mention of Newton. Newton finally
> relented, wrote a private paper on the calculus in 1691 & published it
> in 1704. =A0Apart from the pathetic nationalism & egotism that have
> cursed science from 1600, I must agree that Leibniz did a better job
> of the math but Newton wins on the physics.

The way that the history is told depends on the nationality of
the historian. English authors make the claim that Leibnitz had
an unauthorized peek at Newton's unpublished work. French
historians deny this. The evidence on this matter, either way, is
entirely hearsay in nature.

THE DEBATED QUESTION OF PRIORITY WAS NOT THE POINT OF MY POST.

In response to Bob's statement that "Newton published -Princiipia-
using traditional geometric language because his calculus methods
were relatively unknown to his target audience," you made the
totally false assertion, "Wrong again, Bob. Calculus was not
'relatively' unknown by Newton's contemporaries - it was totally
unknown, since Newton wished to keep his 'secret weopon' to
himself."

In 1687, the year of publication of Newton's Principia, calculus
was by no means "unknown" among Newton's contemporaries. Leibnitz
had been publishing on the subject for the previous decade.

You were misinformed when you wrote that calculus was totally
unknown by Newton's contemporaries.

Now you are attempting to cover up, misdirecting readers away
from your mistake by focusing on the priority debate.

How pathetic of you.

Jerry