0
$\begingroup$

''It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact, as it must be, if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left open to the consideration of my readers. ''

Try to explain the quote to me in the simplest terms possible.

$\endgroup$

closed as unclear what you're asking by WillO, stafusa, John Rennie, Kyle Kanos, Jon Custer Jun 18 at 12:34

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That he believes, gravity is progressing through an "agent" and not through pure emptiness? $\endgroup$ – Steeven Nov 25 '16 at 9:23
  • $\begingroup$ I recommend watching Feynman's lecture cornell.edu/video/…, The Character of Physical Law-The law of Gravitation. He does an excellent job of explaining the issues with the law of gravitation and the problem with action at a distance. $\endgroup$ – David Elm Nov 25 '16 at 10:07
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ This is not a question about physics, it is about the interpretation of obscure language in an old text. Probably more suitable for History of Science and Mathematics SE. $\endgroup$ – sammy gerbil Nov 25 '16 at 14:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What exactly is unclear? $\endgroup$ – WillO Jun 17 at 21:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Nice quote. Good old Newton! (I don't think the language is obscure, but rather lucid). $\endgroup$ – Andrew Steane Jun 17 at 21:19
2
$\begingroup$

Consider the image below which dipicts a "gravitational field" being produced by a massive object. Other objects in turn respond to the "gravitational field" that is present in their local vicinity.

That is, the moon in the image below isn't responding to the Earth directly through a mysterious action at a distance, but rather the moon is responding to the nearby gravitational field produced by the Earth.

Newton is stating he belives that gravity must work locally through something like the gravitational field dipicted below, rather than being a true action at a distance.

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Just to add: "action at a distance" was impossible in the philosophy of the day and one of the main objections to Newton's gravity was that an object's mass affected a distant object. $\endgroup$ – Martin Beckett Nov 25 '16 at 13:49
-1
$\begingroup$

You have to choose: either the gravitational field is a mathematical construct used only in calculations, or it is a physical object which exists in the space between the Earth and the Moon. If it is a physical object then that space is not a vacuum. It has some particles or waves in it, so it is not nothingness.

If it is just a mathematical description then we can postulate a true vacuum in that space, but in that case the force is acting at a distance with nothing to mediate it.

Trying to have it both ways is a contradiction and therefore wrong.

$\endgroup$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.