6

Musing about the historical evolution of the notation for the gravitational constant ($f$, $G$, $\kappa$, $\kappa^2$), I found myself digging for the first time in my life into Newton's Principia, looking for the data he could have used (had he thought algebrically) to estimate his constant (see this question). In the process, I noticed a funny calculation error in a simple division in Book III, Proposition XIX, Problem III (e.g. p.406 of Motte's translation, but I could find it in every version of the book I checked). Here it is:

the circumference of the earth is 123,249,600 feet and its semidiameter 19615800 Paris feet, upon the supposition that the earth is of a spherical figure. [...] A body in every sidereal day of 23h 56 4s uniformly revolving in a circle at the distance of 19615800 feet from the centre, in one second of time describes an arc of 1433.46 feet.

Dividing 123,249,600 feet by the 86,164 seconds of the sideral day, he should have found 1430.407! The error was acknowledged e.g. by MacDougal in his undergrads lecture in 2012 p.172 where he noted in a footnote that:

Using Newton’s numbers for circumference and time, our calculations show the velocity value to be 1,430.4 Paris feet per second, about 3 feet per second less than Newton’s value. It is unknown why there is this small discrepancy against Newton’s value.

You can also find it in Harper's book (2011) p.254 footnote 74. Harper made no comments about Newton's value, and had the wrong number of seconds in a day (86,160) so his result doesn't count, but he made me wonder if this calculation is mathematically cursed. At least in that case the mistake is obvious. But, and that is my question here, what happened with Isaac's division?

I find doubtful the possibility that 1433.46 instead of 1430.40(7) is a typo (2 non-adjacent digits are involved). I tried to play with the inputs, but again you need to have more that one digit wrong to get Newton's answer. (I'm making the implicit assumption that Isaac did at most one silly mistake.) So there may be an obvious calculation error somewhere, but I can't find anything plausible, so any hint is welcome.

I know it is not really an interesting physical question (neither mathematical, nor historical) but I am kind of haunted by it now, and I needed to do something to get rid of it.

mmanu F
  • 169
  • 2
  • 3
    This is not the only calculational error in book III, Garisto found another one in Proposition VIII. There Newton calculated the relative mass of the Earth for 11" parallax, but then changed the parallax to 10.5" in the third edition, while forgetting to change the relative mass accordingly (which he did calculate in the manuscript). Is this error present in all editions? – Conifold Nov 12 '20 at 20:53
  • 1
    yes, I knew that story (from Garisto himself on twitter). Until now, I only checked, the english (Motte) & french (du Châtelet) translated version. But now that you're asking, I looked into the latin version (I found the annotated first edition here https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PR-ADV-B-00039-00001/1 and the one typed in the wikisource (not sure of the edition) https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Philosophiae_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica) : the calculation is not there, the whole first part of Prop.XIX, Prob.III is missing (there Prop.XIX is only Prob.II)... interesting... – mmanu F Nov 13 '20 at 10:10
  • 1
    Someone knows where to find the 2nd & 3rd editions online ? – mmanu F Nov 13 '20 at 10:17
  • 2
    OK! I have the (annotated) 2nd ed. (https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PR-ADV-B-00039-00002/851) & it's enlightening! The printed version has an earth radius of 19,695,539 and a (correct) computed velocity of 1436.223. But he changed the radius by hand to 19,622,659 & the velocity (still correct) to 1430.085. That hints to the answer: at the time of the 2nd ed. he's not decided which value to choose for the radius! Note that none of these are the value used in the translation of the 3rd ed. Note also that the circumference given page 848 IS the one used in the translated editions ... – mmanu F Nov 13 '20 at 12:55
  • 1
    Is there an online version of volume II, 3rd edition? – mmanu F Nov 13 '20 at 13:42

0 Answers0