Talk:Hypotheses non fingo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Since this passage is so contentious, shouldn't the translation have a citation? It's not the original Motte translation, which I'm appending below (from antiquebooks.net and confirmed by Amazon.com full-text-search). I don't think it's the Cohen-Whitman translation either, which is the definitive contemporary English translation. It might be the Motte-Cajori translation from the earlier 20th century which is generally frowned on and now obsolete. If anyone can get the Cohen-Whitman translation for this passage, put it up, it's the definitive translation (I don't have a copy of it). And maybe the original latin passage should also be posted.

Motte's 1726 translation of the passage: But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from ph[ae]nomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for whatever is not deduced from the ph[ae]nomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the ph[ae]nomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction.

I agree that there should be a citation. This page shows the relevant page of the translation, and this shows the Latin original (I've put the phrase in bold):

"Rationem verò harum gravitatis proprietatum ex phænomenis nondum potui deducere, et hypotheses non fingo. Quicquid enim ex phænomenis non deducitur, hypothesis vocanda est; et hypotheses seu metaphysicæ, seu physicæ, seu qualitatum occultarum, seu mechanicæ, in philosophiâ experimentali locum non habent. In hâc philosophiâ Propositiones deducuntur ex phænomenis, et redduntur generales per inductionem." Alec.brady (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General Relativity

Einstein at least in the context of classical physics discovered what causes gravity. The curvature of space-time. --Hfarmer 06:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but what causes the curvature of space-time?Alec.brady (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd or 3rd edition?

this article says it was quoted from the 3rd edition of Principia while the article Newton's law of universal gravitation says it was a quote from the 2nd edition. (24.242.221.231 11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Mass warps space-time???

Just deleted "It is still unknown why mass warps space-time." from the article since this is irrelevant to the concept and the whole sentence is just incorrect I believe. Mass doesn't just warp space-time. That's also not what action-at-distance is about. It is about forces acting either trough a medium or trough particle collisions.--131.174.17.91 (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)