Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Browse subjects
  3. History
  4. History of science and technology
  5. Content listing

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

13581 results in History of science and technology

Page 589 of 680

  • Obituary

  • Journal:
    The British Journal for the History of Science / Volume 2 / Issue 2 / December 1964
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    05 January 2009, p. 173
    Print publication:
    December 1964
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • Newton's Early Thoughts on Planetary Motion: A Fresh Look

  • Derek T. Whiteside
  • Journal:
    The British Journal for the History of Science / Volume 2 / Issue 2 / December 1964
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    05 January 2009, pp. 117-137
    Print publication:
    December 1964

  • The conventional view of the prehistory of Newton's synthesis in the Principia of his predecessors' work in planetary theory and terrestrial gravitation is still not seriously changed from that which Newton himself chose to impose on his contemporaries at the end of his life. In his own words:

    ‘… the same year ‘1666’ I began to think of gravity extending to ye orb of the Moon & having found out how to estimate the force wth wch [a] globe revolving within a sphere presses the surface of the sphere from Keplers rule of the periodical times of the Planets being in a sesquialterate proportion of their distances from the centers of their Orbs, & having deduced that the forces wch keep the Planets in their orbs must [be] reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the centers about wch they revolve: & thereby compared the force requisite to keep the Moon in her Orb with the force of gravity at the surface of the earth, & found them answer pretty nearly …’

  • Henry Ernest Stapleton 1878–1962

  • F. H. C. Butler
  • Journal:
    The British Journal for the History of Science / Volume 2 / Issue 1 / June 1964
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    05 January 2009, pp. 64-67
    Print publication:
    June 1964
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • BJH volume 2 issue 1 Cover and Front matter

  • Journal:
    The British Journal for the History of Science / Volume 2 / Issue 1 / June 1964
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    05 January 2009, pp. f1-f3
    Print publication:
    June 1964
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • BJH volume 2 issue 1 Cover and Back matter

  • Journal:
    The British Journal for the History of Science / Volume 2 / Issue 1 / June 1964
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    05 January 2009, pp. b1-b3
    Print publication:
    June 1964
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion: 1609–1666*

  • J. L. Russell
  • Journal:
    The British Journal for the History of Science / Volume 2 / Issue 1 / June 1964
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    05 January 2009, pp. 1-24
    Print publication:
    June 1964

  • Historians of seventeenth-century science have frequently asserted that Kepler's laws of planetary motion were largely ignored between the time of their first publication (1609, 1619) and the publication of Newton's Principia (1687). In fact, however, they were more widely known and accepted than has been generally recognized.

    Kepler's ideas were, indeed, rather slow in establishing themselves, and until about 1630 there are few references to them in the literature of the time. But from then onwards, interest in them increased fairly rapidly. In particular, the principle of elliptical orbits had been accepted by most of the leading astronomers in France before 1645 and in England by about 1655. It also received quite strong support in Holland.

    The second law had a more chequered history. It was enunciated in its exact form by a few writers and was used in practice by some others without being explicitly formulated, but the majority, especially after 1645, preferred one or another of several variant forms which were easier to use but only approximately correct. The third law attracted less interest than the others, chiefly perhaps because it had no satisfactory theoretical basis, but it was correctly stated by at least six writers during the period under review.

    Between about 1630 and 1650 Kepler's Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae (in which all three laws were clearly formulated) was probably the most widely read work on theoretical astronomy in northern and western Europe, while his Rudolphine Tables, which were based upon the first two laws, were regarded by the majority of astronomers as the most accurate planetary tables available.

    Kepler's work certainly did not receive all the recognition it deserved, but the extent to which it was neglected has been much exaggerated.

Page 589 of 680